checkpoint_publishMake a specific Tinker checkpoint publicly accessible by providing its tinker_path. Use to publish trained model checkpoints for sharing or downstream use.
Make this exact checkpoint publicly accessible on Tinker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tinker_path | 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 declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and repeat-safety profile is already covered. The description adds the meaningful consequence that the checkpoint becomes 'publicly accessible', which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of saying whether this replaces an existing published version, what audience 'public' means, or what authorization is required.
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 sentence with the visibility outcome front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutation/idempotency profile is covered by annotations. However, the description omits how the tinker_path is sourced and what 'publicly accessible' entails, leaving the agent with an under-specified invocation for a state-changing operation.
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 coverage is 0%: tinker_path is an undescribed string. The phrase 'this exact checkpoint' loosely implies tinker_path identifies the checkpoint, but the description never explains the path format, where it comes from, or how to obtain it. With one undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema 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 (make publicly accessible) and resource (checkpoint) with a scope qualifier ('this exact checkpoint'), so the agent knows it operates on one identified checkpoint rather than a list. It implies the inverse of checkpoint_unpublish but never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. checkpoint must already exist or be owned by the caller), and no mention of checkpoint_unpublish or checkpoint_set_ttl. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.