DB Planner

Publish listing

publish_listing

Destructive

Publish one of the user's projects to the public template marketplace, or re-publish the listing it already has. Takes a PROJECT id. Only the person who CREATED the project may publish it, so this refuses for an org admin who can otherwise edit it. Publishing makes the schema, and for a free template the live board, readable by anyone on the internet: confirm with the user before calling it. The listing is free; see the note about pricing in the server instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Up to 8 short lowercase tags.
`title`	Yes	Listing title. The first publish derives the permanent public web address from it, and that address never changes afterwards.
`summary`	No	One line saying what the schema is for. This is the marketplace card's subtitle.
`category`	No	Category slug from the categories list any browse_templates result carries.
`projectId`	Yes	Project id (uuid) to publish.
`description`	No	Longer prose: what it models, what it assumes, what somebody should know before using it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`tags`	No
`title`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`summary`	No
`category`	Yes
`currency`	No
`createdAt`	No
`projectId`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`cloneCount`	No
`priceCents`	No
`tableCount`	No
`columnCount`	No
`description`	No
`publishedAt`	No
`purchaseCount`	No
`takedownReason`	No
`relationshipCount`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedSep 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / category / description

Previous value: -"Category slug from template_categories."New value: +"Category slug from the categories list any browse_templates result carries."

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description meaningfully expands on that: it discloses public internet readability of the schema and, for free templates, the live board; it also details the refusal behavior for org admins. It adds material context beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

The description is compact yet information-dense, front-loading the core purpose and then covering permission, consequences, confirmation, and pricing in logical order. Every sentence contributes actionable guidance with no filler.

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?

For a publishing action with a destructive hint, the description covers the critical context: who can act, what becomes public, the need for user confirmation, and the pricing note. An output schema exists, so return-value details are unnecessary. Nothing an agent needs to decide or warn about is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema, such as the permanent public web address derived from the title on first publish and the marketplace-card subtitle role of the summary. This helps the agent choose correct parameter values.

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: publish one of the user's projects to the public template marketplace, or re-publish an existing listing. It clearly identifies the input (PROJECT id) and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like update_listing and unpublish_listing.

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?

The description explicitly states who may call it (only the project creator) and instructs to confirm with the user before invoking. It does not name alternative listing-management tools, but the permission context and public-exposure warning give clear conditions for appropriate use.

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

All DB Planner tools Inspect

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions clearly explain boundaries. However, list_diagrams/list_documents and get_board/get_board_image are two pairs that both concern the same underlying resource, so an agent could initially select the wrong one without reading carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tool names are snake_case verb_noun pairs such as create_project, update_document, and unpublish_listing, which is very consistent. The exceptions are bare 'draw' and the non-pattern 'whoami', so it is not a perfect 5.

Tool Count2/5

With 38 tools, the surface exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans orgs, projects, documents, board drawing, membership, and marketplace publishing. While each subdomain is individually reasonable, the aggregate is heavy and likely to overwhelm an agent; several related actions could be grouped or exposed more sparingly.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main lifecycle: org/project/document CRUD, board rendering and editing, member management, and template publish/use/update. Minor gaps remain—there is no get_project single-resource read, and groups/links/notes are manipulated only through the generic update_board rather than dedicated tools—but these are workable.

Resources

Need Help?