update_publishingConfigure where a site publishes. Set publishIntegration to 'nextjs' for a credential-free Spook-hosted blog (returns a blog API key), or 'webhook' with publishWebhookUrl. publishMode 'draft' or 'live'. (requires an agent API key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | Yes | ||
| publishMode | No | ||
| publishWebhookUrl | No | ||
| publishIntegration | No | ||
| publishWebhookSecret | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / publishIntegration / enumPrevious value: -[
- "none",
- "webhook",
- "wordpress",
- "ghost",
- "shopify",
- "rest",
- "nextjs"
-]New value: +[
+ "none",
+ "webhook",
+ "wordpress",
+ "ghost",
+ "shopify",
+ "webflow",
+ "rest",
+ "nextjs"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it notes that the nextjs integration is 'credential-free,' that it 'returns a blog API key,' and that the operation 'requires an agent API key.' Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description does not contradict them.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'publishMode draft or live' clause is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but it is short and the overall structure is easy to scan.
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 covers the two highlighted integration modes well, but it is incomplete for an API with 5 parameters, no output schema, and 8 enum options. The agent still cannot tell how to handle the omitted integrations, whether publishWebhookSecret is needed, or what response to expect for modes other than nextjs.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for publishIntegration, publishWebhookUrl, and publishMode, especially the relationship between nextjs and a returned API key. However, it leaves siteId, publishWebhookSecret, and several enum values like wordpress, ghost, shopify, webflow, and rest unexplained.
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 a specific action and resource: 'Configure where a site publishes.' It is distinct from siblings like create_site, get_site, and publish_article, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.
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 gives concrete usage guidance for key parameter choices: 'Set publishIntegration to nextjs... or webhook with publishWebhookUrl' and notes 'publishMode draft or live.' It also states an authentication requirement, but it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but word-counter and character-counter overlap heavily, and meta-tag-generator subsumes several other generators (title, description, canonical). The sheer number of adjacent content generators creates some ambiguity, though descriptions generally clarify.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use snake_case (create_site, get_article, list_articles) while others use hyphenated lowercase (ad-copy-generator, meta-tag-generator, robots-txt-generator). This mixing of conventions makes it hard for an agent to predict the name for a given action.
With 59 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a typical MCP server. Many tools are similar (various calculators, many content generators) and could be consolidated, making the surface bloated and harder to navigate.
The server covers a broad range of SEO tasks: site management, article generation/publishing, analytics, technical SEO, and content tools. However, there are gaps such as missing update/delete operations for articles and no backlink analysis, leaving some workflows incomplete.