Create a new flat HTML page (file_name like 'about.html' + full html).
Filenames are validated; traversal/non-html/overwrite are refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | ||
| file_name | Yes | ||
| project_guid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / project_guidAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / project_idRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_id",
- "file_name",
- "html"
-]New value: +[
+ "project_guid",
+ "file_name",
+ "html"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and compensates well by revealing validation behavior and refusal conditions: filenames are validated, and traversal/non-html/overwrite cases are rejected. It does not mention permissions or error-return style, but the output schema covers result structure, and the safety-critical constraints are explicitly disclosed.
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?
Two short, information-dense sentences. The central purpose and file-name format are front-loaded, followed immediately by important validation rules. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple 3-string-parameter creation tool, the description covers intent, file naming, HTML content, and core safety constraints such as refusal to overwrite or accept unsafe filenames. It is only slightly incomplete because project_guid semantics are left to inference and no guidance is given about integrating the page into a larger build.
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 usefully clarifies file_name by example ('about.html') and says html is 'full html', but it does not explain project_guid at all beyond its obvious name. The description partially compensates, but not completely.
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?
States a clear action and resource: 'Create a new flat HTML page.' It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the page is flat HTML and clarifying file naming with 'file_name like about.html', which distinguishes it from site-level or project-level creation tools such as create_new_site or create_project.
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 clarifies the intended use case: creating a standalone, new HTML page with full HTML content. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives like build_site, but the 'new' and 'flat HTML' phrasing provides enough context for appropriate use.
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 pair a distinct action with a distinct resource and long descriptions make intent clear. Still, `search_domains` already provides exact-domain checks, overlapping with `check_domain`, and the `create_project` vs `create_new_site` vs `create_page` cluster takes careful reading.
The vast majority are snake_case verb_noun: list_projects, create_project, delete_page, get_preview_url, write_asset, query_database, publish_website. The only visible outlier is whoami, but it is standard enough that it does not disrupt predictability.
At 36 tools this is meaningfully heavier than the rubric's 'too many' threshold, even though the scope spans websites, backends, domains, gallery images, and databases. It makes selection harder and a sizeable portion of the surface is niche or lifecycle internal.
The core site lifecycle is well covered: project, htmlmanag, assets, preview/publish, validation, deletion, uploaded images, backend files/logs, database reading, domain search and purchase linking. Workable non-critical gaps exist, e.g. no separate project metadata rename and no direct way to delete database rows or a database outside of deleting the project.