Publish items to Agentic-KB bus channels for discovery, escalation, standards, or handoffs, enabling agents to share updates and route messages across projects.
Publish an item to a bus channel (discovery, escalation, standards, handoffs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| channel | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| from_tier | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Publish' implies a write, but nothing is said about append-only semantics, whether the item is immutable, who reads the channel, or what happens on failure. Six parameters and a mutation with zero behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But for a six-parameter tool with no schema coverage, this level of brevity is under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage mean the description is the only source of information, and it covers one sentence. It is not complete enough for an agent to call a six-parameter write operation correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate and does not. It only hints at valid values for 'channel'; the meaning and format of 'from', 'to', 'body', 'project', and 'from_tier' are left entirely undefined.
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 resource (bus item/channel) and enumerates the channel values, which lets an agent recognize the tool. However, it never clarifies that this is the agent bus rather than the repo bus, leaving it ambiguous against publish_repo_discovery and publish_repo_escalation, whose names overlap with two of the listed channels.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (publish_repo_discovery, publish_repo_escalation) that an agent must choose between. Usage is only weakly implied by the channel enumeration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.