Set IPT publication options including auto-publish schedule, frequency, and skip unchanged settings to control when resources are published.
[writes to the IPT] Save publication options (page auto-publish: updateFrequency, updateFrequencyDayOfWeek, updateFrequencyDay, updateFrequencyTime, skipUnchanged, …).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| values | Yes | ||
| shortname | Yes | Resource shortname |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It does state '[writes to the IPT]' which indicates a mutation, but gives no details on permission requirements, whether existing settings are overwritten or merged, reversibility, or side effects. This is minimal transparency for a write operation.
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 sentence, which is efficient, but it is a run-on with parentheses and an ellipsis that makes it slightly awkward. It front-loads the write indication, but the structure is not clean or fully readable.
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 write tool with no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete schema coverage, this description is insufficient. It fails to explain the exact behavior for each page type, what the values object should contain, error handling, or success indication. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.
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 only 33% (only shortname has a description). The description partially compensates by listing example keys for the values object (updateFrequency, skipUnchanged, etc.), which adds meaning beyond the generic object schema. However, it doesn't explain the page parameter or the full value set, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 tool saves publication options on the IPT, with the verb 'Save' and resource 'publication options'. It even lists sample fields like updateFrequency. It is distinct from the sibling get_settings (read) and other set_* tools that target different aspects, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to. It does not explain the two page enum values (auto-publish vs publication-settings) or any prerequisites. The description merely asserts the action without contextualizing it among the many ipt_set_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.