post_app_updatePublish update notes for your app on Dorms to notify teachers and display an update badge on the app card.
도름스에 올린 내 앱에 업데이트 노트를 게시한다. 그 앱에 도름을 준 선생님들에게 알림이 가고, 앱 카드에 '업데이트' 배지가 붙는다. app_id 는 list_my_apps 로 확인한 UUID. body 는 무엇이 새로워졌는지(1~4000자, 한국어 권장). version 은 선택(예: '1.2').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | 업데이트 내용 (1~4000자) | |
| app_id | Yes | 앱 UUID (list_my_apps 결과의 id) | |
| version | No | 버전 표기 (선택, 예: 1.2) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to carry the safety profile, the description discloses meaningful side effects: notifications to teachers who gave 도름 for the app and the '업데이트' badge on the app card. It does not mention reversibility or ownership requirements, but for a publishing action it gives substantial behavioral context.
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?
Three dense, purposeful sentences: the main action is front-loaded, side effects follow, and parameter guidance is compact. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, all parameter semantics, and the ID source. Minor omissions like response shape or error conditions are not critical for invoking it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining that app_id is the UUID from list_my_apps, body should describe what's new with a Korean recommendation, and version is optional with an example. This goes beyond the schema's short labels.
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?
The description states a specific action ('업데이트 노트를 게시한다') on a specific resource ('도름스에 올린 내 앱'), and the side effect of an '업데이트' badge clearly distinguishes it from the read-only siblings get_app_feedback and list_my_apps.
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?
It explicitly tells the agent to obtain app_id via list_my_apps, which routes to the correct sibling for the prerequisite step. The context for when to use this tool (publishing an update note) is clear, and no competing alternative is relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.