pressadvantage-mcp

sandbox_distribution_ordered

Simulate ordering a distribution for a press release by ID in a sandbox environment. Test distribution workflow triggers without affecting live releases.

Instructions

[SANDBOX/TESTING ONLY] Simulate distribution being ordered / triggered

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "sandbox_distribution_ordered"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Release ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly reveals this is a simulation and not a real operation, which is useful. But it does not disclose side effects, such as what state changes occur or whether it triggers downstream events, which would be valuable for a simulation tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the sandbox/testing context, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter sandbox tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps about the impact of calling this tool (e.g., does it change distribution status? trigger notifications?). It could be more complete regarding the tool's behavioral context.

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%: the single parameter 'id' has a clear description 'Release ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Simulate' with the resource 'distribution being ordered / triggered', clearly indicating it's a test/simulation action. It distinguishes itself as sandbox-only but doesn't differentiate from sibling sandbox tools like sandbox_distribution_completed, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The '[SANDBOX/TESTING ONLY]' prefix gives clear context that this tool is for testing, implying it should not be used in production. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other sandbox simulation tools or mention exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.