unpublish_listingTake one of the user's own templates off the marketplace and make its project private again. Copies somebody already made stay theirs. Re-publishing later reuses the same public address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listingId | Yes | Listing id (uuid), from list_my_listings. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / listingId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Listing id (uuid), from my_listings."New value: +"Listing id (uuid), from list_my_listings."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals important behavioral details: copies made by others remain theirs, the project becomes private again, and the same public address is reused on re-publishing. These are exactly the non-obvious side effects an agent needs to know.
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?
Three tightly written sentences, each carrying substantive information: the core action, ownership scope, and post-action behavior. There is no repetition of the schema or annotations, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
This is a single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, so the description already covers everything needed for correct invocation. The ownership constraint and copy/address semantics are the kinds of details that prevent misuse, and they are present.
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?
The input schema already fully documents the only parameter, listingId, and even sources it from list_my_listings. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail; the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific action: take one of the user's own templates off the marketplace and make its project private again. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like publish_listing and update_listing without requiring the agent to inspect their schemas.
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 clear context: it applies only to the user's own templates, and it notes that re-publishing later reuses the same public address, implying the inverse use of publish_listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.