Publish IT Glue documents after editing sections to make your changes visible. Call after creating, updating, or deleting sections to apply updates.
Publish an IT Glue document to make section changes visible. Always call this after creating, updating, or deleting sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | The document ID to publish |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2v1.15.0v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that publishing makes section changes visible, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether publishing affects already-published sections, so the disclosure is only partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The action and purpose are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is a direct, imperative follow-up. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the purpose, and the exact trigger condition. The only minor gap is the lack of any detail about the response or what happens if the document is already published, but this does not hinder correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents document_id with 100% coverage, including its type and description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('IT Glue document'), and clarifies the purpose: making section changes visible. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling section mutation tools like create_document_section, update_document_section, and delete_document_section.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to call this tool: 'Always call this after creating, updating, or deleting sections.' That is clear and actionable context. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage condition is specific enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.