Skip to main content
Glama
BACH-AI-Tools

EdgeOne Pages MCP

by BACH-AI-Tools
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

EdgeOne Pages MCP

An MCP service for deploying HTML content, folders, or full-stack projects to EdgeOne Pages and obtaining publicly accessible URLs.

基于原项目: 此项目基于 edgeone-pages-mcp 修改而来

Demo

Deploy HTML

Deploy Folder

Related MCP server: Self-Hosted EdgeOne Pages MCP Server

Requirements

  • Node.js 18 or higher

MCP Configuration

stdio MCP Server

Full-featured MCP service that supports the deploy_folder tool for deploying full-stack projects.

// Tencent Cloud International (Default)
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "edgeone-pages-mcp-server": {
      "timeout": 600,
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@bachstudio/edgeone-pages-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

// Tencent Cloud China
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "edgeone-pages-mcp-server": {
      "timeout": 600,
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@bachstudio/edgeone-pages-mcp", "--region", "china"]
    }
  }
}

The following MCP Server will be deprecated soon:

Supports both deploy_html and deploy_folder_or_zip tools.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "edgeone-pages-mcp-server": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@bachstudio/edgeone-pages-mcp"],
      "env": {
        // Optional. 
        // If you need to deploy folders or zip files to 
        // EdgeOne Pages projects, provide your EdgeOne Pages API token.
        // How to obtain your API token: 
        // https://edgeone.ai/document/177158578324279296
        "EDGEONE_PAGES_API_TOKEN": "",
        // Optional. Leave empty to create a new EdgeOne Pages project.
        // Provide a project name to update an existing project.
        "EDGEONE_PAGES_PROJECT_NAME": ""
      }
    }
  }
}

Streaming HTTP MCP Server

For MCP clients that support HTTP streaming, only supports the deploy_html tool.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "edgeone-pages-mcp-server": {
      "url": "https://mcp-on-edge.edgeone.site/mcp-server"
    }
  }
}

Tool Details

deploy_html Tool

Architecture Design

EdgeOne Pages MCP Architecture

The architecture diagram shows the complete workflow of the deploy_html tool:

  1. Large Language Model generates HTML content

  2. Content is sent to the EdgeOne Pages MCP Server

  3. MCP Server deploys the content to EdgeOne Pages Edge Functions

  4. Content is stored in EdgeOne KV Store for fast edge access

  5. MCP Server returns a publicly accessible URL

  6. Users can access the deployed content via browser with fast edge delivery

Implementation Details

This tool integrates with EdgeOne Pages Functions to deploy static HTML content:

  1. EdgeOne Pages Functions - A serverless computing platform that supports executing JavaScript/TypeScript code at the edge

  2. Core Implementation Features:

    • Uses EdgeOne Pages KV storage to save and serve HTML content

    • Automatically generates publicly accessible URLs for each deployment

    • Provides comprehensive API error handling and feedback

  3. How It Works:

    • MCP server receives HTML content through the deploy_html tool

    • Connects to EdgeOne Pages API to obtain the base URL

    • Deploys HTML content using the EdgeOne Pages KV API

    • Returns an immediately accessible public URL

For more information, refer to the EdgeOne Pages Functions documentation and EdgeOne Pages KV Storage Guide.

The source code is open source and can be self-deployed with custom domain binding: https://github.com/TencentEdgeOne/self-hosted-pages-mcp

deploy_folder Tool

This tool supports deploying complete projects to EdgeOne Pages:

  • Supports full deployment of static website projects

  • Supports deployment of full-stack applications

  • Option to update existing projects or create new ones

License

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
deploy_folder_or_zipB

Deploy a built frontend directory (or zip file) to EdgeOne Pages. Returns: the deployment URL and project metadata.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
builtFolderPathYesProvide the absolute path to the built frontend folder(or zip file) you wish to deploy.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values (deployment URL and project metadata), which is helpful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwrites existing deployments), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a deployment tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return values. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (deployment operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return values but misses behavioral context like side effects or error handling. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a mutation tool without annotations, more completeness would be expected.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'builtFolderPath' with its description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify format expectations like supported file types or size limits). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Deploy'), the resource ('a built frontend directory (or zip file)'), and the target ('to EdgeOne Pages'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'deploy_html' by specifying it handles directories/zip files rather than HTML content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'deploy_html' or other alternatives. It mentions the resource type (directory/zip) but doesn't explain when this is preferred over HTML deployment or other deployment methods. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

deploy_htmlC

Deploy HTML content to EdgeOne Pages, return the public URL

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYesProvide the full HTML markup you wish to publish. After deployment, the system will generate and return a public URL where your content can be accessed.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a public URL, which is helpful, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether deployment is permanent or temporary, error conditions, or what happens to previous deployments. For a deployment tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 8 words, front-loading the core purpose and outcome with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place in communicating essential information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given this is a deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'deploy' entails operationally, what EdgeOne Pages is, whether there are size limits or content restrictions, or what format the returned URL takes. For a tool that presumably creates publicly accessible content, more context is needed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Deploy HTML content') and target resource ('EdgeOne Pages'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'deploy_folder_or_zip' beyond mentioning 'HTML content' versus potentially folders/ZIP files.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'deploy_folder_or_zip' or any alternatives. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.0.15
    • First observeddeploy_folder_or_zip
    • First observeddeploy_html
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: deploy_folder_or_zip handles directory or zip file deployments for built frontends, while deploy_html handles direct HTML content deployments. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern starting with 'deploy_' and clearly indicate their target (folder_or_zip vs. html). The naming is uniform and predictable throughout the set.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a deployment service. It lacks essential operations like listing deployments, updating or deleting them, or managing projects, which limits agent workflows and creates dead ends.

Completeness2/5

The toolset is severely incomplete for a deployment domain. It provides create-like operations (deploy) but lacks read, update, delete, or management functions (e.g., list_deployments, get_deployment_status, delete_deployment), making it difficult for agents to handle full lifecycle tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/edgeone-pages-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server