Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-nexus

agent-nexus

by dugubuyan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

publish_draft

Confirm a draft document version to publish it and trigger notifications for subscribers.

Instructions

Confirm a draft document version, publishing it and triggering notifications.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "doc_id": "<doc_id>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "publish_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
doc_idYes
versionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions side effects (triggering notifications) but fails to disclose idempotency, error states, required permissions, or what happens if the draft is already published. Behavioral transparency is low.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise (one sentence, 9 words) with no fluff. However, it is too brief to convey necessary detail, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It earns a middle score for being efficient but insufficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, parameter details, and comprehensive behavioral context. The agent would need to guess or infer many aspects.

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 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. However, the description does not mention any parameter by name or role. The three required parameters (project_id, doc_id, version) remain unexplained, leaving the agent to infer their semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Confirm a draft document version, publishing it and triggering notifications') and identifies the resource type. It distinguishes this tool from siblings; no other sibling mentions publishing drafts or confirming versions, making its purpose unique.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_document or push_document. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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