Create Web Page

Unpublish Landing Page

page.unpublish

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a published landing page from public availability while keeping its draft and revision history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pageId`	Yes
`editToken`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`pageId`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`actions`	Yes
`content`	No
`claimUrl`	Yes
`editToken`	Yes
`expiresAt`	Yes
`isClaimed`	Yes
`nextSteps`	No	Enrichment hints to present to the user. Address 'required' items before publishing.
`canPublish`	Yes
`previewUrl`	Yes
`isPublished`	Yes
`publishedUrl`	Yes
`missingFields`	No
`publishPolicy`	No	For edit tools on already-published pages, this is wait_for_separate_user_request to prevent same-turn publishing.
`liveUpdateMessage`	No	Plain-language instruction explaining that an edit to an already-published page is draft-only and must not be published until a later explicit user request.
`liveUpdateRequired`	No	True after an edit to an already-published page when the public live page still needs page.publish to reflect the latest revision.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds valuable context that the removal only affects public availability and does not delete draft or revision history. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the extent of the destructive action.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately clarifies the scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and key nuance. However, the lack of editToken explanation is a minor gap that keeps it from being fully complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. pageId is somewhat obvious, but editToken's purpose is entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on whether or when to provide it.

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 action ('Remove a published landing page from public availability') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like page.publish by specifying it retains the draft and revision history. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a published page needs to be taken offline while preserving drafts and history. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to infer the appropriate use case, especially given the sibling tool page.publish.

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

All Create Web Page 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources and actions (blocks, accounts, pages), but page.create and page.create_from_brief both create pages, and page.intake.start vs page.onboarding.start/update are overlapping planning helpers. The detailed descriptions help disambiguate, though an agent might still pause on choosing between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase dot-separated resource.action pattern (e.g., block.add, page.publish, account.whoami). Nested resources like page.header.update and page.onboarding.update extend the same rule without mixing conventions.

Tool Count3/5

At 23 tools, the count sits in the borderline 16-25 range. Many tools are specific and justified, but the planning helpers (intake/onboarding) and multiple page creation variants add bulk that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The server covers create, read, update, block management, and publish/unpublish, but misses a page.delete operation, leaving a lifecycle dead-end. Account tools are also minimal, limited to reading/listing without management capabilities.

Resources

Need Help?