flingflyers

Update a published flyer

update_flyer

DestructiveIdempotent

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 A second publish_flyer call mints a different URL and leaves the old page live and out of date, which is almost never what the user meant by "update it".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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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.

All flingflyers 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

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?