Share an HTML page or PDF as a short public link. No account or API key, expires on its own.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct action on flyers: publish creates, revoke deletes, update replaces content. Descriptions clearly differentiate them with no overlap, ensuring an agent can reliably select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: publish_flyer, revoke_flyer, update_flyer. The naming is predictable and uniform, aiding in quick understanding.
With 3 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose of publishing and managing individual flyers. While a few more tools (e.g., list or extend expiry) could be useful, the current count is not too few for the core functionality.
The tool set covers the essential lifecycle: create, read (implicitly via publish), update, and delete. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit retrieval of a flyer's metadata or ability to extend expiration without updating content, but the core workflow is complete.
publish_flyerPublish a flyerAInspectPublish an HTML document at a short public URL and return the link. Use this when the user wants to view a page you made in a real browser, send it to someone, or open it on another device — anywhere handing back raw markup is not good enough.
The link works for anyone who has it, with no account and no sign-in, and expires on its own (7 days by default). It is public: anyone with the URL can read the page, so do not publish anything the user would not post openly, and confirm first unless they have asked you to share it.
Plain (unencrypted) only. The document reaches the server as text, so this cannot produce an encrypted flyer — for that the user runs npx flingflyers <file> -e --persist on their own machine, where the key is generated locally and never sent. Say so rather than implying this is private.
Single self-contained document: inline the CSS, JS and images, or use data URIs. External file references will not resolve.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | The complete HTML document, including <!doctype html>. Must be self-contained. | |
| ttl_hours | No | How long the link should live, in hours. Default 168 (7 days), maximum 720 (30 days). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: link is public, expires automatically (7 days default), is unencrypted, and requires a self-contained document. It also warns about external references not resolving. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured, starting with the core action, then usage context, behavioral details, and technical constraints. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, security, constraints, and return value (implied link). It leaves no significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that the HTML must be self-contained and include <!doctype html>, and warns that external files won't resolve. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool publishes an HTML document to a short public URL and returns the link. It distinguishes itself from siblings (revoke_flyer, update_flyer) by focusing on creation of a flyer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool (e.g., when user wants to view in browser, send to someone) and when not to (e.g., for encrypted flyers, recommending an alternative command). It also advises to confirm before publishing sensitive content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
revoke_flyerTake down a flyerATake down a flyer immediately: the link starts returning "gone" and the stored document is deleted. Needs the id and owner_token returned when it was published — there are no accounts, so that token is the only proof of ownership and it is not recoverable if lost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The flyer id, e.g. x7Kp2mQ. | |
| owner_token | Yes | The owner_token returned by publish_flyer. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds beyond these by stating the link returns 'gone', the document is deleted, and that the owner_token is non-recoverable. It fully discloses the irreversible nature and required credentials, with no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and effect; the second covers prerequisites and caution. Every sentence is necessary and impactful, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple revocation tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers: what it does, side effects, required inputs (with origin), and a critical warning about token loss. It leaves no gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the owner_token comes from publish_flyer and providing an example format for the id ('x7Kp2mQ'), which helps agents understand parameter origins beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Take down a flyer') and its immediate effect ('link starts returning gone, document deleted'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like publish_flyer and update_flyer by describing an irreversible revocation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to permanently remove a flyer) and provides critical prerequisites: 'Needs the id and owner_token returned when it was published.' It also warns about token irrecoverability, implying not to use without the token. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_flyerUpdate a published flyerAReplace the contents of a flyer you already published, keeping the same URL. Use this for every revision to a page that is already live — a fix, a new section, a chart the user asked you to add — so the link they may have already sent to someone keeps working and shows the new version.
Prefer this over publishing again. A second publish_flyer call mints a different URL and leaves the old page live and out of date, which is almost never what the user meant by "update it".
Needs the id and owner_token returned when it was published; there are no accounts, so that token is the only proof of ownership. Send the complete replacement document, not a patch or a fragment — the old contents are overwritten and cannot be recovered.
The expiry is left alone unless you pass ttl_hours, so editing a page does not quietly extend how long its link stays alive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The flyer id, e.g. x7Kp2mQ. | |
| html | Yes | The complete replacement HTML document, including <!doctype html>. Must be self-contained. | |
| ttl_hours | No | Optional. Reset the expiry to this many hours from now, maximum 720 (30 days). Omit to keep the flyer's existing expiry. | |
| owner_token | Yes | The owner_token returned by publish_flyer. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations: old contents overwritten and unrecoverable, expiry unchanged unless ttl_hours passed, need complete replacement. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with main action and use case. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Well structured with clear paragraphs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers ownership token, idempotency, complete replacement requirement, and expiry behavior. Adequate given no output schema and 4 params with 100% schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds: html must be complete document (not patch), ttl_hours description including max 30 days and effect on expiry, and origin of id and owner_token.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it replaces contents of a published flyer while keeping the same URL. Differentiates from siblings: explicitly prefers this over publish_flyer and implies revoke_flyer is for revocation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use (every revision to live page) and when not to use (avoid second publish_flyer). Also mentions prerequisites: id and owner_token from publish_flyer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
