zaytsv-bot-graph-mcp

publish_graph

Publish a graph to make it active, returning a publishedGraphId on success or a list of errors with node IDs and messages for debugging.

Instructions

Опубликовать граф. Вернёт publishedGraphId или errors[] (code, nodeId, message).

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": {
      "graphId": "<graphId>"
    },
    "name": "publish_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`graphId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the return format (publishedGraphId or errors[] with code, nodeId, message), which provides useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that includes the core action and return values without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple (1 required parameter, no annotations, no output schema), and the description provides the essential action and return format. However, it lacks usage context, sibling differentiation, and error semantics beyond the error structure, so it is minimally viable but not thorough.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'graphId'. The single parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description does not elaborate on its format, source, or relationship to other graph operations, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Опубликовать граф' / 'Publish graph') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by the action of publishing. It also mentions return values (publishedGraphId or errors), making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_graph or set_active_graph. It does not state prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the user to infer usage context.

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