Publishes the exact reviewed marketplace listing draft only after explicit user confirmation, returning the saved result on repeated calls.
Publish the exact reviewed draft ONLY after the user's confirmation button click. External write; never call proactively. Repeated successful calls return the saved result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context by tying idempotency to concrete behavior ('repeated successful calls return the saved result') and flagging the external-write nature. It doesn't say what publishing destroys or whether it can be undone, which keeps it below 5.
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?
Three short sentences, no filler, with the safety-critical constraint up front. Every clause carries operational weight.
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?
With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly complete for a one-parameter tool. The remaining gap is the unexplained draft_id.
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% for the single parameter draft_id, and the description never defines what a draft_id is, where it comes from, or what format it takes. 'The exact reviewed draft' gives only a loose semantic anchor, so the description largely fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 specific verb (publish) and a specific resource (the exact reviewed draft), and the confirmation gate implicitly separates it from prepare_listing. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it supersedes, so it falls short of the 5 bar.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger condition ('ONLY after the user's confirmation button click') and an explicit prohibition ('never call proactively'), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs before an external write.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.