chatpipe-mcp

Name: chatpipe-mcp
Author: darktw

by darktw

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

ChatPipe MCP is a Model Context Protocol server that lets AI coding agents publish HTML content as live, shareable web pages. Describe what you need — a dashboard, a landing page, a form — and get a public URL in seconds.

No deployment pipelines. No hosting configuration. No domain setup. Just describe and publish.

Features

Instant publishing — HTML to live URL in under a second
Global delivery — Pages load fast from anywhere in the world
Access control — Public pages or password-protected with encryption
Update in place — Modify published pages without changing the URL
Works with any MCP client — Compatible with any AI coding agent that supports the Model Context Protocol

Related MCP server: drop

Quick Start

Prerequisites

A free ChatPipe account
An MCP-compatible AI coding agent

1. Generate an API key

Note: Copy the key immediately after generation. It will not be shown again. You can regenerate a new key at any time, which revokes the previous one.

2. Install (one command)

Run this in your terminal — replace YOUR_API_KEY with the key from step 1:

claude mcp add chatpipe --transport url https://api.chatpipe.net/mcp --header "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"

That's it. Restart your AI coding agent and ChatPipe tools are ready.

If you prefer to configure manually, add this to your MCP client config file:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "chatpipe": {
      "type": "url",
      "url": "https://api.chatpipe.net/mcp",
      "headers": {
        "Authorization": "Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"
      }
    }
  }
}

Replace YOUR_API_KEY with the key generated in step 1.

3. Start publishing

Try these prompts in your AI coding agent:

"Create a landing page for my project and publish it"
"Build a dashboard showing monthly revenue and publish it as a live page"
"Make a contact form and give me a shareable link"

Available Tools

`publish_page`

Publish HTML content as a live, shareable page. Returns a public URL.

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
`name`	`string`	Yes	Page title (e.g., `"Monthly Dashboard"`)
`slug`	`string`	Yes	URL slug, lowercase with hyphens (e.g., `"monthly-dashboard"`)
`html`	`string`	Yes	Complete HTML content to publish
`access`	`string`	No	`"public"` (default) or `"password"`
`password`	`string`	No	Required when `access` is `"password"`

`list_projects`

List all published pages with their URLs, names, and access levels. Takes no parameters.

`update_page`

Update the HTML content of an existing page. The URL remains the same.

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
`slug`	`string`	Yes	Slug of the page to update
`html`	`string`	Yes	New HTML content
`name`	`string`	No	New page title

`delete_page`

Permanently remove a published page.

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
`slug`	`string`	Yes	Slug of the page to delete

Use Cases

Who	What
Consultants	Build client dashboards and share a live URL in your next message
Developers	Publish project pages, docs, or demos without a deploy pipeline
Sales teams	Generate custom proposals as live pages for each prospect
Marketers	Spin up landing pages on the fly and test them immediately
Freelancers	Share deliverables as live pages instead of static files

Pricing

	Free	Pro ($19/mo)	Business ($49/mo)
Projects	5	Unlimited	Unlimited
Link expiry	30 days	Never	Never
Password protection	—	Yes	Yes
Email-restricted access	—	—	Yes
Team seats	—	—	5

Manage your plan at chatpipe.net.

Security

All communication encrypted over HTTPS
API keys scoped per user — each key can only access its owner's pages
Keys can be regenerated at any time (revokes the previous key)
Password-protected pages are encrypted at rest

Contributing

Found a bug or have a feature request? Open an issue.

License

MIT

Available Tools

4 tools

delete_pageC

Delete a published page permanently.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The slug of the page to delete

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context by stating 'permanently,' which implies irreversibility and potential data loss, but it doesn't cover other critical aspects like required permissions, error conditions (e.g., if the page doesn't exist), or side effects. For a destructive 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key action and resource, and the word 'permanently' adds necessary emphasis without verbosity. Every part of the description earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, and expected outcomes. For a tool that permanently deletes data, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'slug' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a published page'), and specifies 'permanently' to emphasize the irreversible nature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_page' or 'publish_page' beyond the obvious verb difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the page must exist and be published), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'update_page' for modifications instead of deletion. The description is standalone with no contextual usage hints.

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

list_projectsA

List all your published ChatPipe pages/projects with their URLs and metadata.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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 indicates a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The mention of 'metadata' is vague without detailing what metadata is included.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or output structure, which are important for a tool that returns data.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead, which aligns with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all') and resource ('your published ChatPipe pages/projects'), including what information is returned ('URLs and metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_page, publish_page, and update_page by focusing on retrieval rather than modification.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for viewing published pages/projects but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'published' items, which suggests a context, but lacks guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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

publish_pageB

Publish HTML content as a live, shareable page on ChatPipe. Returns a public URL.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Page name/title (e.g. 'Monthly Dashboard')
`slug`	Yes	URL slug (lowercase, hyphens only, e.g. 'monthly-dashboard')
`html`	Yes	Complete HTML content to publish
`access`	No	Access level (default: public)
`password`	No	Password for protected pages (only if access=password)

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 tool publishes content and returns a URL, but fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, whether publishing is irreversible, rate limits, or error handling for duplicate slugs. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects), error conditions, or response format details beyond mentioning a URL. More context is needed given the tool's complexity.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain HTML validation or slug uniqueness). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Publish HTML content'), the resource ('as a live, shareable page on ChatPipe'), and the outcome ('Returns a public URL'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_page and update_page by focusing on creation and publication rather than modification or deletion.

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 alternatives like update_page or list_projects. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing existing projects) or exclusions (e.g., not for updating existing pages).

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

update_pageC

Update the HTML content of an existing published page.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	The slug of the page to update
`html`	Yes	New HTML content
`name`	No	New name (optional)

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it highly concise and effective.

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 the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, auth needs), return values, or error cases, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (slug, html, name) thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'html' is for content updates, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Update') and resource ('HTML content of an existing published page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'publish_page', which might handle similar content updates, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 minimal guidance by specifying 'existing published page', implying it's for updates rather than creation. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'publish_page'), or prerequisites, leaving usage context vague.

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.

4 tool updatesv0.1.0Mar 17, 2026
- First observeddelete_page
- First observedlist_projects
- First observedpublish_page
- First observedupdate_page

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list_projects for viewing, publish_page for creation, update_page for modification, and delete_page for removal. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these CRUD operations.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_projects, publish_page, update_page, delete_page) with snake_case throughout. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and select the right tool.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing ChatPipe pages, covering the essential CRUD operations (list, create, update, delete). Each tool earns its place without being overly sparse or bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides complete lifecycle coverage for the domain of publishing and managing HTML pages on ChatPipe, including listing, creating, updating, and deleting pages. There are no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

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

Related MCP Connectors

YeetIt A
io.github.snappyio
Instant web publishing for AI agents. POST HTML, get a live URL. No account needed.
Web Scraping App Automation
43
dropOAuth
io.neuronik
Publish web pages straight from your AI assistant and share them with a link.
Content Management Systems Workplace & Productivity
2
Hatch A
com.viberooster
Hosting for AI agents: publish a live website in one tool call, ephemeral or forever.
Agent Orchestration Cloud Platforms
161
quickypageOAuth
page.quicky
Publish, update, read, rename, and share single-URL web pages from any AI agent.
Content Management Systems Developer Tools
2

Related MCP Servers

ABOVO MCP Server
Content Management Systems App Automation Communication
seanfenlon
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
Simple and free publishing of content on the web for AI Agents
Updated a month ago (2026-08-01 20:11 UTC)
2
11,502
MIT
drop
Content Management Systems Developer Tools
neuronik-io
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Publishes HTML pages straight from your AI assistant to a shareable URL, then lets you manage them - update, list, search, fetch, and delete pages in a public or private workspace. Turns "share what I just made" into a single tool call from Claude, Cursor, or any MCP client.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-09 11:28 UTC)
MIT
Pageliveofficial
Content Management Systems Monitoring
Pagelive
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Publish the pages you build with AI - as a private, tracked, secure link.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-03 10:30 UTC)
MIT
shiply — Static Site Hosting &
Agent Orchestration Cloud Platforms
stevejford
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
Instant web hosting for AI agents. Publish a live site in one call, no account needed.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-05 15:43 UTC)
5
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/darktw/chatpipe-mcp'

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

Features

Quick Start

Prerequisites

1. Generate an API key

2. Install (one command)

3. Start publishing

Available Tools

publish_page

list_projects

update_page

delete_page

Use Cases

Pricing

Security

Contributing

Links

License

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Pageliveofficial

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

`publish_page`

`list_projects`

`update_page`

`delete_page`