Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
publish-pilot-mcp

publish-pilot-mcp

by acus9345
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_workflows

Generate CI and release workflow files for testing, OIDC publishing to npm/PyPI/crates, and GitHub releases from CHANGELOG; existing files remain unless overwrite is enabled.

Instructions

Write ci.yml and release.yml (on v* tags: test, publish via OIDC unless the version exists, GitHub release from CHANGELOG). Keeps existing files unless overwrite.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dirYes
privateNoPrivate repo: Ubuntu-only CI to save Actions minutes
releaseNoregistry
registryNoOmit for repo-only
overwriteNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / properties / dir / description
      Removed value: -"Project folder (absolute path, or relative to the server's working directory)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / private / description
      Previous value: -"Private repo: CI runs on Ubuntu only (Windows minutes count 2x, macOS 10x)."New value: +"Private repo: Ubuntu-only CI to save Actions minutes"
    • changedInput schema / properties / registry / description
      Previous value: -"Omit for a repo-only project."New value: +"Omit for repo-only"
    • removedInput schema / properties / release / description
      Removed value: -"registry: publish + GitHub release; github-only: just a GitHub release."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / private
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Private repo: CI runs on Ubuntu only (Windows minutes count 2x, macOS 10x).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: existing files are preserved unless overwrite is set, and the generated release workflow conditionally publishes via OIDC unless the version already exists. It doesn't describe permissions needed or exact file locations, but the added behavioral context is substantial for a non-destructive write tool.

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?

Two dense sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the files written and the conditional behavior. The parenthetical is information-rich but slightly compressed; overall it earns its space.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 5-parameter file-generation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the core behavior and overwrite semantics but leaves the required dir parameter and several enum parameters unexplained. An agent can call it, but some parameters remain opaque.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 40%, so the description must compensate, but it only partially does. It clarifies overwrite semantics and hints at release behavior on v* tags, but leaves dir, release, and registry enum meanings unexplained, and does not mention private's Ubuntu-only optimization.

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?

States a specific action ('Write ci.yml and release.yml') and the key trigger behavior on v* tags. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like setup_trusted_publishing or tag_and_release, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling it complements.

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?

Usage is implied by the content (CI/release workflow generation) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as scaffold_project. An agent can infer the scenario, but the description doesn't route between tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools