Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vish288

mcp-coda

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Coda Publish Doc

coda_publish_doc

Publish a Coda doc to make it publicly accessible by link, with optional URL slug, publishing mode, and gallery listing. Returns the published URL and settings.

Instructions

Publish a Coda doc to make it publicly accessible.

Publishes the doc with optional gallery listing and URL slug. Publishing alone makes the doc public by link; setting discoverable=True is a separate, more public step that lists it in the Coda gallery. Use coda_unpublish_doc to revert. Returns the published doc's URL and settings.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoPublishing mode. One of 'view', 'play', or 'edit'
slugNoURL slug for the published doc
doc_idYesThe doc ID to publish
discoverableNoWhether the doc is listed in the public Coda gallery. Defaults to False — publishing alone makes the doc reachable by URL; set True to list it.
category_namesNoCategory names for the published doc (from coda_list_categories)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.9.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / discoverable / default
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / discoverable / description
      Previous value: -"Whether the doc is discoverable in the Coda gallery"New value: +"Whether the doc is listed in the public Coda gallery. Defaults to False — publishing alone makes the doc reachable by URL; set True to list it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / mode / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "view",
+      "play",
+      "edit"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / mode / description
      Previous value: -"Publishing mode (e.g. 'view', 'play', 'edit')"New value: +"Publishing mode. One of 'view', 'play', or 'edit'"
  3. First observedv0.4.14

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the important consequence that the doc becomes publicly reachable and how discoverable escalates that exposure. It also discloses the return content (published URL and settings), which matters since no output schema exists. It does not mention required scopes/permissions or whether prior publish settings are overwritten, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then the discoverability nuance and the revert path. No filler or restated title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a public-exposure mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key flag's effect, reversal, and return values. The remaining gap is permission/scope requirements and what happens on republish, which an agent might need for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the discoverable/gallery distinction and mentions URL slug, but adds no meaning for 'mode' or 'category_names' beyond the schema, and largely restates what the parameter descriptions already say.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a Coda doc') along with the outcome ('make it publicly accessible'). It also names the sibling used to reverse it (coda_unpublish_doc), so an agent can place it among the doc-management tools without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete context: publishing alone makes the doc public by link, while discoverable=True is a separate, more public gallery step, and coda_unpublish_doc reverts it. Missing is any exclusion against similar mutations (e.g. coda_update_doc, coda_add_permission) or prerequisite permissions, but the when-to-use condition and the alternative are clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools