Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
esa MCP Server

esa MCP Server

Official
by esaio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Ship a post

esa_ship_post
Destructive

Marks a post as complete by setting wip to false, making it ready to publish. Use this only to ship without other changes; use esa_update_post when updating title, content, or other fields.

Instructions

Ships a post by setting wip to false. This marks the post as complete and ready to be published. Use this only when you need to ship without making other changes - if you're also updating title, content, or other fields, use esa_update_post with wip: false instead.

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": {
      "postNumber": "<postNumber>"
    },
    "name": "esa_ship_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNameNoTeam name (required). Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams.
postNumberYesThe post number to ship

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.13.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by explaining the exact field change ('setting wip to false') and its effect ('marks the post as complete and ready to be published'). It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but that is largely covered by the destructive annotation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three tight sentences with no wasted language. It front-loads the core action, then adds the effect, then routes the agent to the correct alternative when conditions differ.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the action, effect, and sibling alternative; no output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the teamName requirement and postNumber purpose. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Ships a post'), explains the underlying action ('setting wip to false'), and distinguishes this tool from the sibling esa_update_post. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('only when you need to ship without making other changes') and names the alternative for the other case ('use esa_update_post with wip: false instead'). Both the positive and negative usage conditions are clear.

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