Skip to main content
Glama

VarynForge

by com.varynforge

Mark article published

mark_article_published
Destructive

Record that an article went live at a URL. Flips the suggestion to published, writes the distribution ledger row, stamps the Passport, and pings IndexNow. Call it only once the URL actually resolves — the IndexNow ping fires immediately, and a ping for a dead URL is wasted (search engines crawl, hit the 404, drop it; nothing re-pings later). For a CMS-scheduled article, set scheduledFor via update_article_status and stay in ready_to_publish: publish auto-detect attests it (and pings IndexNow) when it appears. Use this instead of update_article_status for the published transition — a status flip alone records no URL, and without a URL the article is invisible to Search Console outcome tracking (clicks/impressions on the Earnings page). Also works on an already-published suggestion to attach a missing or corrected URL. Pass publishedAt (ISO datetime, must not be in the future) when the article went live EARLIER than this call — e.g. attesting after the fact or matching a CMS publish date — so the record carries the real go-live moment instead of the call time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
contextYesOne sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.
publishedAtNo
publishedUrlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "publishedUrl"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "publishedUrl",
+  "context"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / publishedAt
      Added value: +{
+  "format": "date-time",
+  "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description greatly expands on this by naming concrete side effects: immediate IndexNow ping, ledger write, Passport stamp, and the wasted-ping consequence of calling it with a dead URL. It also reveals the downstream Search Console tracking dependency on recording a URL. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Despite being long, every sentence carries operationally relevant information: behavior, prerequisites, exclusions, alternatives, and parameter semantics. The main action is front-loaded, and the detailed warnings and routing rules are placed exactly where an agent needs them. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a complex mutation tool with no output schema and minimal schema descriptions, yet the description covers purpose, side effects, timing, prerequisites, when not to use it, alternatives, and the meaning of the tricky publishedAt parameter. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description carries most of the parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains publishedAt (ISO datetime, not in future, used for backdated go-live moments) and publishedUrl (must resolve, used for corrected/missing URLs). The id parameter is only implied as the suggestion identifier, and context is already described in the schema. This is strong compensation for the low schema coverage, though a small explicit mention of id would make it complete.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record that an article went live at a URL.' It then enumerates concrete effects (flips suggestion to published, writes ledger, stamps Passport, pings IndexNow) and explicitly contrasts itself with update_article_status, so an agent can distinguish it from its closest sibling without inspecting schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it only once the URL actually resolves,' 'Use this instead of update_article_status for the published transition,' and it explains why a status flip alone is insufficient. It also provides an alternative path for CMS-scheduled articles via update_article_status, making the decision boundary crystal clear.

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

All VarynForge toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions carefully cross-reference close alternatives (e.g., add_article_suggestion vs create_article_suggestion_with_input vs accept_idea). A few brief/read variants like get_article_brief, get_write_handoff, and download_brief_markdown could still be confused despite helpful explanations, so the set is not perfectly unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern throughout: get_*, list_*, create_*, update_*, set_*, add_*, delete_*, start_*, expand_*, etc. Even the less common names like lint_draft and remap_asset are still clear verb_noun constructions.

Tool Count1/5

At 57 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold for a single MCP server. Even for a broad content workflow, the surface is overwhelming and would benefit from consolidation or splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full content lifecycle: project setup, research runs, opportunity clustering, suggestion creation, brief generation, drafting, linting, publishing, reporting, and account management. Minor gaps exist—destinations and projects cannot be deleted via MCP, and there is no direct update for article suggestion metadata—but these are workable via the web UI or existing tools.

Resources