flingflyers
Server Details
Share an HTML page or PDF as a short public link. No account or API key, expires on its own.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
publish_flyer and revoke_flyer have clearly distinct purposes: creation and deletion. No overlap.
Both tools follow the verb_noun pattern consistently: publish_flyer and revoke_flyer.
Two tools is minimal but appropriate for a focused service of publishing and revoking flyers. A list tool could be added, but not necessary for core functionality.
The tool set covers the complete lifecycle for this domain: create (publish) and delete (revoke). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolspublish_flyerPublish a flyerAInspect
Publish 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 It is public: anyone with the URL can read the page, so do not publish anything the user would not post openly, and confirm first unless they have asked you to share it.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). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: link is public, expires in 7 days, plain text only, must be self-contained. 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?
Description is comprehensive but slightly lengthy; each paragraph adds value, but could be tightened. Front-loaded with core purpose.
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 2 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tool, the description covers usage, constraints, security, and alternatives comprehensively.
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 has 100% coverage but description adds context: 'Must be self-contained' for html, and explains ttl_hours default and maximum. Adds clear meaning.
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 verb 'publish', the resource 'HTML document', and the outcome 'short public URL'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'revoke_flyer' by being the creation counterpart.
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 states when to use (view in browser, send, open on another device) and when not to use (do not publish sensitive content, confirm first). Provides alternative for encryption via npx command.
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 flyerADestructiveIdempotentInspect
Take 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds specific behavioral details beyond annotations: the link returns 'gone', document is deleted, and the token's irrecoverability. Annotations only indicate destructive and idempotent; description enriches with exact effects and ownership model.
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?
Extremely concise (two sentences, ~50 words) with front-loaded action and effect. Every sentence contributes essential 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?
For a simple revocation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input parameters, behavior, and a critical caveat. Missing return value description, but acceptable given simplicity.
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 already covers 100% of parameters. Description adds value by giving an example for id and clarifying that owner_token comes from publish_flyer and is the only proof of ownership, reinforcing its importance.
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 action (take down a flyer) and the immediate effect (link returns 'gone', document deleted). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'publish_flyer' by mentioning the required id and owner_token from publishing.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use (to revoke a flyer) and critical guidance on the owner_token (sole proof of ownership, not recoverable). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios, but the sibling tool is opposite.
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 flyerADestructiveIdempotentInspect
Replace 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as 'the old contents are overwritten and cannot be recovered' (consistent with destructiveHint=true) and that 'the expiry is left alone unless you pass ttl_hours'. It does not contradict any 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 a single paragraph with clear, front-loaded main action. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter. Minor redundancy: both 'complete replacement' and 'not a patch or fragment' convey the same idea.
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 has no output schema and four parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, prerequisites, side effects, and parameter semantics. It is complete and leaves no major 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?
Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains the owner_token's role as proof of ownership, specifies the html parameter must be a complete self-contained document, and clarifies ttl_hours behavior regarding expiry reset. This goes well beyond the schema's basic 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's purpose: 'Replace the contents of a flyer you already published, keeping the same URL.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling publish_flyer by advising to prefer this tool over republishing.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('every revision to a page that is already live') and when-not-to-use ('prefer this over publishing again'), including rationale about URL management. It also lists prerequisites (id, owner_token) and behavioral notes (send complete replacement, expiry handling).
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!