alibaba-seller-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

product_publish

Publish a new Alibaba product listing from a manifest file (product.json), auto-filling required attributes. Use draft mode to verify before going live.

Instructions

Publish a product from a manifest file (product.json), creating a new product.

The manifest gives category_id, language, fields, and asset references (main_images/detail_images, price_file, video). Required category attributes (icbuCatProp) are auto-filled from the manifest's product_attributes (keyed by attribute name or id) using the schema's own options/required rules. Set draft=True to create a draft (not listed live) — recommended for verifying a manifest. missing_required in the result lists required attributes still unfilled (a real publish needs them). The manifest and its assets are confined to the server's allowed directories.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft`	No
`account_key`	No
`manifest_path`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`error`	No
`response`	No
`error_type`	No
`product_id`	No
`biz_success`	No
`filled_fields`	No
`missing_required`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: auto-fill of required category attributes from product_attributes, draft semantics ('not listed live'), and that the manifest and assets are confined to the server's allowed directories. It stops short of describing failure conditions or side effects on existing products.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action is front-loaded in the opening sentence, followed by structured detail on the manifest, attribute auto-fill, draft mode, and result fields. Dense but each clause carries information; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still notes missing_required in the result. It covers manifest structure, auto-fill rules, draft mode, and directory confinement. The only real gap is the unexplained account_key parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains draft well and explains manifest_path's contents/constraints, but account_key is entirely undocumented and manifest_path's path syntax is left implicit. Partial compensation only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence gives a clear verb+resource ('Publish a product from a manifest file ... creating a new product') and names the concrete artifact (product.json). This implicitly distinguishes it from product_publish_from_brief (brief vs manifest) and product_update, though no sibling is explicitly named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It offers real guidance for one decision ('Set draft=True ... recommended for verifying a manifest') but never states when to choose this tool over product_publish_from_brief, product_render_draft, or product_update, nor prerequisites/alternatives. Usage is implied rather than framed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.