Skip to main content
Glama

Hostilo

by app.hostilo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Publish site HTML

update_site
Idempotent

Replaces the site's index.html with the given full HTML and publishes it immediately. The previous version is kept in the version history (last 10), so it can be restored. When several people edit the site, pass expected_version (the version from get_site): if someone saved in the meantime, nothing is overwritten and you get a version_conflict error.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlYesFull HTML of the page (max 5 MB).
siteYesSite id or name, e.g. "my-portfolio" or "my-portfolio.hostilo.page" (from list_sites).
expected_versionNoOptional: the version from get_site. If the site was saved by someone else since then, nothing is published and you get a version_conflict error (get the site again and merge).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / site / description
      Previous value: -"Site id or name, e.g. \"my-portfolio\" or \"my-portfolio.hostilo.app\" (from list_sites)."New value: +"Site id or name, e.g. \"my-portfolio\" or \"my-portfolio.hostilo.page\" (from list_sites)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_version
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the version from get_site. If the site was saved by someone else since then, nothing is published and you get a version_conflict error (get the site again and merge).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description goes well beyond them: the write is immediate and public, the previous version is retained in a 10-entry history and can be restored, and a stale expected_version causes a no-op plus version_conflict rather than a clobber. That is exactly the kind of mutation consequence an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: the write scope, the reversibility guarantee, and the optimistic-concurrency rule. The most important fact (immediate publish) is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences, reversibility, history depth and conflict handling, so an agent can call it safely. It omits any note on permissions/auth requirements and whether other site files are touched, which are minor gaps given the annotations and full schema coverage.

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 html, site and expected_version are already documented in the schema, including the version_conflict behavior. The description restates the expected_version contract and adds the merge hint ('get the site again and merge'), which is a small increment over structured data rather than new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource plus the exact scope: it replaces the site's index.html and publishes immediately. That is far more precise than the title 'Publish site HTML'. It never differentiates itself from the sibling publish_files, which sounds like it may also write site content, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a concrete usage condition for the concurrency case: pass expected_version when several people edit the site, sourced from get_site. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over publish_files or import_zip, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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

All Hostilo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources