Skip to main content
Glama

Dock

by ai.trydock

update_html

Write an HTML surface's body. Pass any of html / css / js; omitted fields stay unchanged. Pass empty string to clear. The surface renders in a sandboxed iframe on a separate origin (render.trydock.ai) with no access to Dock cookies, storage, or parent DOM — you have free rein inside that boundary. Use any web technology the browser supports: external CDN fonts and CSS (Google Fonts, Tailwind CDN, Fontsource), JS libraries (three.js, GSAP, Chart.js, anime.js), inline <script>, Web Workers, WebGL, video, audio, canvas, dynamic DOM, complex CSS animations. Per-field caps: html 256 KB, css 200 KB, js 200 KB, total 600 KB. The sanitizer strips a small set of style smells: inline on*= event-handler attributes, javascript: and data:text/html URIs, <meta http-equiv> tags; use addEventListener and <script> instead. Layout: Dock renders the surface EDGE-TO-EDGE (full-bleed) inside the workspace — the surface itself is the frame. Do NOT put border-radius, an outer border, or a drop-shadow on the root/outermost element unless the owner explicitly asked for that framing, or the specific design genuinely needs it; keep the page root flush and apply rounding to inner cards only. DESIGN LANGUAGE: Dock injects a base stylesheet into every surface — semantic tokens + a small component kit — that automatically follows each VIEWER's light/dark theme. PREFER these over hardcoded colors so the surface matches Dock and themes correctly for everyone (a surface with hardcoded dark colors looks broken for a light-mode teammate on a shared surface, and vice-versa). Tokens: var(--dock-canvas|surface|surface-muted|border|border-strong|text|text-2|text-muted|accent|accent-ink|data|data-strong|good|warn|crit), var(--dock-radius|shadow|gap); font is Inter via var(--dock-font). Component classes: .dock-card, .dock-stat/.dock-stat-value/.dock-stat-label, .dock-delta.up|.down, .dock-badge.good|warn|crit|neutral|accent (add a ), .dock-btn(.primary), .dock-table (use td.name for the primary cell, .dock-num for tabular figures), .dock-grid, .dock-eyebrow, .dock-row, .dock-avatar, .dock-field + .dock-input, .dock-bars/.dock-bar(.hot). Put .dock-num on any number so it aligns. This is only a DEFAULT floor — write your own CSS to override any of it; nothing in the baseline is !important, so a surface that brings its own styles always wins. Requires editor role.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jsNoJS source. Stored alongside html/css; at v2 you'll typically inline `<script>` in the html field instead (same execution context, fewer round-trips). 200 KB cap (matches the top-level `update_html` description; the server enforces `HTML_SURFACE_LIMITS.jsBytes` = 200_000).
cssNoCSS source. Applied inside the sandbox iframe. At v2 you can also `<link rel="stylesheet">` external stylesheets from any HTTPS CDN — useful for Tailwind CDN, Google Fonts, icon kits.
htmlNoHTML body. Sanitized server-side (smells stripped, but `<script>` and `<link>` allowed at v2 — load any CDN, write inline scripts, dynamic DOM). Use `validate_html` first for a pre-flight check.
slugYesThe workspace slug.
surface_slugNoOptional html surface slug. Omit to write the primary html surface.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly details the sandboxed iframe on a separate origin, per-field caps, sanitizer rules, full-bleed layout constraints, injected design tokens/components, and role requirement. This is exemplary transparency 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy but well-structured into labeled sections (Layout, DESIGN LANGUAGE) and stays dense with actionable info. It front-loads the core purpose and behavior before design aesthetics, and no sentence is wasted. Some expansion (e.g., listing every component class) could be seen as over-detailed, but it's appropriately sized for the complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a write tool with no output schema, the description covers input, safety boundary, size limits, styling guidance, and authorization. It explains partial updates and clearing semantics ('Pass empty string to clear'). The only minor omission is error handling, but that is not required for selection and invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds substantial semantic guidance: allowed CDN libraries, sanitizer stripping of inline on* attributes, per-field caps, and design-token usage. It tells the agent exactly what values to pass for html/css/js (e.g., 'use addEventListener instead of inline handlers'), exceeding the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Write an HTML surface's body' — a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_html, create_surface, and validate_html. It explicitly lists the mutable fields (html/css/js) and the partial-update semantics ('omitted fields stay unchanged').

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states 'Requires editor role' and recommends 'Use validate_html first for a pre-flight check', giving clear invocation context and a companion validation tool. The optional surface_slug is explained ('Omit to write the primary html surface'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives for creating surfaces or updating metadata, but the context is sufficient.

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

All Dock toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.

Resources