blink artifact

Publish HTML page

publish_html

Destructive

Call get_skill first if you have not. Publish a new HTML artifact, or replace the index page and title of an existing artifact you own or can edit (shared with edit role). For a new artifact, system: "" installs that design system (the default is not applied to html on its own); system cannot be combined with id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "html": "<html>"
    },
    "name": "publish_html"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`html`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`system`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description adds the concrete consequence (the index page and title of an existing artifact are replaced), the permission requirement (owner or edit-role share), and the design-system install side effect. The mutual-exclusion rule between 'system' and 'id' is behavioral context not present in annotations or schema.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the prerequisite is front-loaded before the action. The nested quoting around "<design-system id>" makes the last sentence slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers permissions, replacement scope, and parameter interplay. It does not say what is returned or whether the replaced index page is recoverable (a relevant question given the version_restore sibling), which is the remaining gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: 'system' installs that design system and is not applied by default to HTML, and 'id' selects the existing artifact to replace. It adds the constraint that 'system' cannot be combined with 'id'. 'title' and 'html' are left to their names, which is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a new HTML artifact') and covers the update case ('replace the index page and title of an existing artifact'). It is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from generic siblings like create_artifact or write_files, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Call get_skill first if you have not') and splits the two modes of use: new artifact vs. existing artifact you own or can edit. It does not say when to prefer create_artifact or edit_file instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All blink artifact tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?