unulu

Update a site

unulu_update_site

Destructive

Update an existing site. All fields are optional — only provided fields are changed. Links replace the entire array (omit to keep existing). Before updating, always call unulu_get_state first to read the current links and their ids — do not guess link ids. Authorization depends on site lifecycle: X-Claim-Token header for ephemeral (pre-claim) sites, X-Edit-Token header for claimed (post-claim) sites. If neither token is available and the site is claimed, use requestEditAccess to obtain an edit_token. If you created the site in this conversation, you already have the claim_token — use it directly. Returns the full updated site state. Keep iteration fast — apply changes immediately without re-confirming minor edits unless ambiguous. Accepts a site ID, a full URL (e.g. https://abc123.unu.lu), or a bare hostname (e.g. abc123.unu.lu).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bio`	No	Short bio in first person, 1–3 sentences, capturing what's distinctive — no filler phrases like 'passionate about' or 'dedicated to'. If you lack context, write something short and honest rather than generic. Supports markdown.
`name`	No	Display name / heading for the site
`links`	No	Replaces all links — omit to keep existing links unchanged. Order matters — place the most important link first. Well-known social links display branded icons automatically — omit leading_icon for these.
`site_id`	Yes	Site ID, full URL (e.g. https://abc123.unu.lu), or bare hostname (e.g. abc123.unu.lu)
`skin_id`	No	Optional theme skin. When omitted, the live site includes a visual theme chooser — prefer omitting so the user can pick their own.
`claim_url`	No	Legacy parameter — accepts a full Claim URL from older create-site responses. The server extracts the claim_token automatically. Prefer claim_token directly.
`edit_token`	No	JWT token for claimed sites (alternative to X-Edit-Token header)
`claim_token`	No	HMAC token for ephemeral sites (alternative to X-Claim-Token header)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bio`	No
`url`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`links`	Yes
`site_id`	Yes
`skin_id`	No
`expires_at`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: partial update semantics ('only provided fields are changed'), the destructive nature of links replacement ('Links replace the entire array'), authorization requirements, and return value (full updated site state). It complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds operational value (preconditions, auth, replacement behavior, iteration guidance) without unnecessary filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

The description covers all essential operational aspects: purpose, prerequisites, authorization, destructive details, return value, and identifier formats. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return structure. It is complete for a complex update tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some useful context (e.g., site_id accepts URL/hostname, token alternatives), but largely reiterates schema descriptions. The mention of 'link ids' is not reflected in the schema's link item properties, which creates slight ambiguity.

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 verb and resource: 'Update an existing site.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (unulu_create_site, unulu_get_state, unulu_check_handle) by focusing on modification and providing update-specific guidance.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use instructions, including always calling unulu_get_state first to avoid guessing link ids, and details the authorization workflow depending on lifecycle (X-Claim-Token vs X-Edit-Token), with a clear fallback to requestEditAccess. This is strong practical guidance.

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

All unulu tools Inspect

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

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose with no overlap: check_handle verifies availability, create_site builds a new site, get_state retrieves current site data, and update_site modifies an existing site. The descriptions clearly differentiate their functions, preventing agent misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'unulu_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., unulu_check_handle, unulu_create_site). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy for agents to understand and navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, this server is well-scoped for handling link-in-bio sites on unu.lu. It covers the essential lifecycle: checking availability, creating, reading, and updating sites, which is appropriate for its focused domain without being overly sparse or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides strong coverage for the core site lifecycle (check, create, read, update), but lacks a delete tool for removing sites. This minor gap can be worked around by agents, as the domain is otherwise well-covered with no dead ends in typical workflows.

Update a site

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources