Just Publish
Server Details
Publish the website you built with AI to a live public URL — straight from chat, no setup.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: deploy for publishing/replacing the entire site, get_site_files for reading current files, and update_site_file for targeted edits. No overlap or ambiguity.
Tools use snake_case with verb-first naming: deploy, get_site_files, update_site_file. All except 'deploy' follow verb_noun pattern, but the pattern is still clear and predictable.
Three tools is minimal but appropriate for the focused domain of static site publishing. Covers core workflows without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers publish, read, and update operations. Lacks an explicit delete tool, but deploy (which replaces the whole site) can delete files by omission. Minor gaps in listing or managing multiple sites.
Available Tools
3 toolsdeployAInspect
Put a website live at a public URL. Use this when the user wants to publish, launch, or get a page online — e.g. 'I need a website', 'put up a page for my business', 'make this live'. Takes static files (HTML, CSS, JS, images) and returns a working URL anyone can open. No build step, no config. First call: omit site_id and edit_token — you get back a url, a site_id, and an edit_token. Keep the edit_token; it's the only way to change this site later. Later calls: pass site_id + edit_token to publish over the same site. deploy REPLACES the whole site — any file you leave out is DELETED. To change just one or a few files, use update_site_file instead. To see what's currently live before editing, use get_site_files first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email to associate with the site. Captured unverified at first deploy; verification only required later for custom domains and recovery. | ||
| files | Yes | Files to publish. Must include an index.html at the root. | |
| site_id | No | Existing site id to update. Omit to create a new site. | |
| edit_token | No | Edit token returned at create time. Required to update. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The live URL of the published site. |
| created | Yes | true if this call created a new site; false if it updated an existing one. |
| site_id | Yes | The site's slug / id — pass back to update it later. |
| edit_token | No | Returned ONLY on first create. Save it — it's the only way to update this site. |
| total_bytes | Yes | Total size of the site in bytes after this deploy. |
| email_masked | Yes | The owner email, masked for display (e.g. 'a***@example.com'). |
| dashboard_url | Yes | Deep link to this site in the owner's dashboard. |
| email_verified | Yes | Whether the site's owner email is verified right now. New sites are always false. |
| files_uploaded | Yes | Number of files written in this deploy. |
| verify_required | Yes | true when the owner still needs to verify their email (keys on !email_verified). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'deploy REPLACES the whole site — any file you leave out is DELETED,' which is a destructive action. However, the annotations set destructiveHint=false, contradicting this behavioral information. This contradiction undermines transparency.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is informative but somewhat lengthy; could be slightly more concise without losing key details. Every sentence provides value, but brevity could be improved.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive replacement, two-phase workflow, required index.html, sibling tools), the description covers all essential aspects: workflow, file handling, alternatives, and warnings. It is comprehensive and avoids gaps.
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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: explains the purpose of email (unverified at first, required later for custom domains), the necessity of an index.html in files, and the usage pattern for site_id and edit_token (omit on first call, include on later). Schema coverage is 100% but description enriches context.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Put a website live at a public URL.' It uses a specific verb ('put live') and resource ('website'), and distinguishes from siblings by naming update_site_file and get_site_files as alternatives for partial changes or inspection.
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?
Explicitly states when to use ('when the user wants to publish, launch, or get a page online') and when not to use ('To change just one or a few files, use update_site_file instead; to see what's live, use get_site_files first'). Provides clear workflow for first vs. later calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_site_filesARead-onlyInspect
Read the files of a site you already published, so you can make a targeted edit instead of rebuilding the whole site from memory. Returns a complete manifest (every file's path, size, content-type, sha256) plus the contents of the text files (HTML/CSS/JS/etc). Also returns the site's current version — pass it back to update_site_file so you don't overwrite a newer change. Pass paths to fetch only specific files; omit it to get all text files. Requires site_id + edit_token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | No | Optional. Specific file paths to return contents for (e.g. ['index.html','style.css']). Omit to get all text files. The manifest always lists every file regardless. | |
| site_id | Yes | The site id returned at publish time. | |
| edit_token | Yes | The edit token returned at publish time. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The live URL of the site. |
| files | Yes | Inlined contents of the requested text files (default: all text files, capped for size). |
| site_id | Yes | The site's slug / id. |
| version | Yes | The site's current version — pass as expected_version to update_site_file to avoid clobbering. |
| manifest | Yes | Every file on the site (always complete, regardless of which contents were inlined). |
| truncated | Yes | true if some requested file contents were omitted for size — request specific paths to read them. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return contents (manifest with file details, text file contents, version), behavior of paths parameter (manifest always lists all files), and is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). No contradiction.
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?
Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by return details and parameter usage. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with some repetition (e.g., 'make a targeted edit' and 'instead of rebuilding'). Still efficient.
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?
Complete coverage of purpose, return values, version usage, parameter options, and requirements. Output schema likely details return structure, so description complements it fully.
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 coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning: explains use of version to prevent overwrites, clarifies that omitting paths fetches all text files, and that manifest always lists all files. Adds significant value beyond schema.
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 clearly states 'Read the files of a site you already published' with a specific verb and resource, and explains the purpose of making targeted edits, distinguishing from siblings like update_site_file and deploy.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (targeted edit), how to use (pass version to update_site_file to avoid overwrites), parameter guidance (paths to fetch specific files), and requirements (site_id + edit_token).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_site_fileAInspect
Change one or a few files of an already-published site, leaving every other file untouched (a merge — unlike deploy, which replaces the whole site). Ideal for small edits: fix a typo in index.html, swap a stylesheet, add one page. Best practice: call get_site_files first, edit the returned content, then call this with the files you changed and the expected_version from that read — if the site changed in the meantime you get a clear conflict telling you to re-read. Requires site_id + edit_token. Cannot delete files (use deploy to drop a file) and cannot remove index.html.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | The files to change. Only these are written; all other files on the site survive. | |
| site_id | Yes | The site id returned at publish time. | |
| edit_token | Yes | The edit token returned at publish time. | |
| expected_version | No | Optional but recommended. The `version` you got from get_site_files. If the site has changed since, the update is rejected with a conflict so you can re-read and re-apply. Omit to force last-writer-wins. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The live URL of the site. |
| site_id | Yes | The site's slug / id. |
| version | Yes | The site's new version after the merge. |
| files_total | Yes | Total number of files on the site after the merge. |
| files_written | Yes | Paths of the files written in this update. All other files were left untouched. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive mutation. Description adds significant context: merge behavior, conflict handling with expected_version, requirement of site_id and edit_token, and that it cannot delete files. Does not contradict annotations.
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?
Concise, each sentence adds distinct value. Purpose, guidelines, best practice, requirements, and limitations are each addressed in efficient, front-loaded sentences.
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 tool with 4 parameters and a comprehensive schema, the description covers core behavior, usage guidelines, best practices, and limitations. Output schema is present, so return values need no explanation. No obvious gaps.
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 covers all parameters. Description reinforces purpose of expected_version for optimistic concurrency and explains that only specified files are written. Adds workflow context beyond schema but does not introduce new parameter semantics.
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?
Clearly states the tool changes specific files of a published site, contrasting with deploy which replaces the entire site. The verb 'change' and resource 'files of a site' are specific, and the description distinguishes from sibling tool deploy.
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?
Explicitly advises when to use this tool (small edits) and when to use deploy (to delete files). Recommends preceding with get_site_files to avoid conflicts. Also states limitations (cannot delete files, cannot remove index.html).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!