Publish an app to activate its API endpoints for external calls. Required before any outside request can reach the app's REST API.
Publish an app — required before its API endpoints accept external calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | App id or slug (from list_apps / create_app) | |
| organizationId | No | Organization id; defaults to the credential organization when omitted |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Input schema / properties / appId / descriptionAdded value: +"App id or slug (from list_apps / create_app)"Input schema / properties / organizationId / descriptionAdded value: +"Organization id; defaults to the credential organization when omitted"v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not reveal side effects or state changes beyond 'publish'. It is neither read-only nor destructive per annotations, but no detail is given about what happens during publishing (e.g., whether it is reversible or triggers a deployment).
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is well-structured and to the point.
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 description adequately explains the tool's purpose and prerequisite, and the schema covers parameters. It lacks information about return values or error behavior, but this is not critical for a publish action. Overall, it provides sufficient context for basic usage.
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?
The tool description does not add meaning beyond the parameter schema, which already has clear descriptions for appId and organizationId. The description provides no extra context about parameter usage or relationships.
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 clearly states the verb 'Publish' and the resource 'app', and provides a specific purpose: it is required before API endpoints accept external calls. This gives an unambiguous understanding of what the tool does and distinguishes it from other app-related tools.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (before external calls are accepted) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like build_backend or deploy_frontend. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.