Create a new Leanpub course with your chosen title, slug, and language settings.
Create a new Leanpub course.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| syncMode | No | ||
| githubPath | No | ||
| languageId | Yes | ||
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the create action and provides no information about side effects, permissions, uniqueness constraints, or what happens after a course is created. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but the tool has 8 parameters and no annotation or schema descriptions. This is under-specification rather than earned conciseness, since it omits information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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, mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, a one-sentence description is completely inadequate. The agent is left without parameter semantics, behavioral consequences, return behavior, or guidance on when this tool is appropriate.
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 0%, and the description names none of the 8 parameters. The agent must rely on property names like slug, syncMode, githubPath, publisherId, previewBranch, and publishBranch without any explanation of their meaning, format, or relationships.
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?
States a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new Leanpub course.' The resource is identified specifically enough to distinguish from book, bundle, and track creation at a basic level. However, it does not elaborate on what a course is or how it differs from those sibling tools.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which create_course should be selected over siblings like create_book, create_bundle, or create_track.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.