Skip to main content
Glama
vuluu2k

sbuilder-mcp

by vuluu2k
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sb_publish

DestructiveIdempotent

Publish a draft page to the live site and report the deployed revision ID and timestamp. Optionally verify the live origin serves it; shared global sections republish together.

Instructions

Compile the draft into the live page, and report which revision went live (id, publishedAt, fromVersionId). PUBLISH CASCADES: a page sharing a global section with others republishes them too, because a header edited once must not go live on one page and stay stale on the rest. verify:true then fetches the live page and says whether the origin is serving that revision yet — the storefront caches for 60s, so a reload showing the old page is that, not a failed publish.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verifyNoFetch the live page afterwards and report whether it serves this revision
dry_runNo
page_idYes
site_idNo
publish_draftsNoAlso publish every other page whose draft is ahead of its live copy (listed as unpublished_drafts)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.69.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / publish_drafts
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Also publish every other page whose draft is ahead of its live copy (listed as unpublished_drafts)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.63.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / verify
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Fetch the live page afterwards and report whether it serves this revision",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.0
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "site_id",
-  "page_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "page_id"
+]
  4. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already declaring destructive and idempotent, the description adds crucial context: cascading republish of pages sharing global sections, verify semantics with a 60s cache delay explaining why a reload may show the old page, and the exact revision report fields. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand side effects and expected timing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value (purpose, cascade, verify/caching). It is dense but not bloated, though the all-caps 'PUBLISH CASCADES' and em-dash style make it slightly heavier than necessary. Overall it earns its length.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description does state the returned revision fields and explains verify's post-publish check. However, it omits any mention of dry_run behavior and leaves site_id unexplained, which could lead to incorrect invocation. The cascade and cache details are rich, but the parameter coverage gap lowers completeness.

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 only 40% (verify and publish_drafts have descriptions; dry_run and site_id do not). The tool description enriches only the verify parameter's meaning and mentions the output revision fields, but it does not explain dry_run's effect or clarify site_id's role. 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compile the draft into the live page' and even lists the report fields (id, publishedAt, fromVersionId). It clearly distinguishes the action from generic 'publish' by adding cascade and verify behavior, but it does not name or contrast any sibling tool.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor any alternative tool mentioned. The cascade explanation and verify/cache advice are behavioral/interpretive, not selection criteria. An agent would not know from this description when to choose sb_publish over a tool like sb_page_state or sb_page_repair.

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