Create a new Leanpub book by specifying title and slug, with optional sync modes (Browser, GitHub, or Upload) and branch settings for publishing and previewing.
Create a new Leanpub book (Browser, GitHub, or Upload mode).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| syncMode | No | ||
| githubPath | No | Required for GitHub mode, e.g. 'user/repo' | |
| languageId | No | ||
| publisherId | No | ||
| previewBranch | No | ||
| publishBranch | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a new book is created, without revealing side effects, what the created book's initial state is, whether publishing is required separately, or any job/async behavior. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation operation.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and to the point, though extremely short; the lack of detail is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.
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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 13% schema description coverage, this description is far from complete. It omits parameter meanings, mode-specific requirements, return behavior, and post-creation implications, leaving the agent to guess critical details.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 13%, and the description adds almost no parameter meaning. The mode names ('Browser, GitHub, or Upload') loosely map to syncMode but do not explain the values or dependencies like githubPath, which is only described in the schema. With 8 parameters and only one documented in the schema, the description fails to compensate.
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 ('Create') and a specific resource ('a new Leanpub book'), and further distinguishes the tool by listing the modes (Browser, GitHub, or Upload). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_bundle, create_course, and create_track.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain when each mode should be chosen. It only implies that this is the tool for creating books, but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with related create_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.