Skip to main content
Glama

Revdoku

by com.revdoku

Bucket Publish

bucket_publish
Destructive

Queue an async publish or republish of the bucket's saved draft as a live public website. Read the current Free website allowance from revdoku_status publishing.free_plan.contract.limits.max_live_publications. Unless the user has already reviewed the site or explicitly asks to publish immediately, use bucket_publish_preview first and share that temporary URL for review. For protected/password/private websites, use bucket_publish_password_protected instead. Pass description when the user wants Revdoku to save explanatory bucket text before publishing. Check bucket_publication_get separately for publish_state ready/failed before telling the user the site is live. Fails with BUCKET_VISIBILITY_CHANGE_LOCKED if the bucket's visibility is locked (first publish or an access-mode change); a same-access-mode republish is allowed. Unlocking is web-UI-only — ask the user to unlock it in the Revdoku app. Published content is subject to Revdoku's Acceptable Use Policy (https://revdoku.com/acceptable-use).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoHuman-readable title for the bucket or website publication.
bucket_idYesRevdoku bucket id returned by bucket_list or bucket_get, for example bkt_...
site_modeNoOmit on republish to keep the current routing mode; first publish defaults to static. Use spa when deep links should fall back to the resolved entrypoint.
site_typeNoDeprecated compatibility alias for site_mode.
descriptionNoOptional bucket description to save before publishing. Protected password gates show this after the bucket title.
tracking_enabledNoConvenience toggle that sets both analytics_enabled and client_events_enabled when the specific fields are omitted.
analytics_enabledNoEnable or disable website analytics recording for this publication.
client_events_enabledNoEnable or disable browser-side Revdoku event tracking for this publication.
publication_root_directoryNoOptional: publish ONLY this top-level folder as the website root, so /styles.css resolves instead of /<folder>/styles.css. Every other file/folder stays stored and version-tracked but is NOT served. Persists on the bucket; pass an empty string to publish the whole bucket again. The folder's index.html/index.htm wins; if its served source set is exactly one top-level HTML file, that file becomes the home page automatically. Other missing-index source sets get a navigation Auto-Index Page with direct HTML links and file previews, rendering README.md/README.txt below the listing. Custom entry filenames are not user-selectable.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidanceNo
publicationYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive/non-read-only, and the description adds needed behavioral detail: the operation is asynchronous, it can fail with BUCKET_VISIBILITY_CHANGE_LOCKED on first publish or access-mode change, unlocking is web-UI-only, and published content is subject to the AUP. It also warns not to confirm liveness without checking publish_state.

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?

The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence carries operational value rather than filler. It is long because the tool genuinely has multiple preconditions and alternatives, but the block is dense and well-organized. The AUP sentence is slightly generic.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex async publish tool, the description covers the workflow, safety checks, alternative routing, failure modes, remediation, and policy context. With a rich output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, there is no material missing information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, e.g., 'Pass description when the user wants Revdoku to save explanatory bucket text before publishing,' which is a modest trigger condition rather than substantial new semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Queue an async publish or republish of the bucket's saved draft as a live public website.' It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by routing preview and password-protected publishing elsewhere, so an agent can distinguish bucket_publish from bucket_publish_preview and bucket_publish_password_protected.

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?

It gives explicit decision rules: use bucket_publish_preview first unless the user has reviewed the site or explicitly asks for immediate publishing; use bucket_publish_password_protected for protected/password/private websites; and check bucket_publication_get before reporting the site is live. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Revdoku toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few overlaps exist: bucket_file_move and bucket_file_rename both handle same-bucket renames/moves, and bucket_file_reorganize overlaps with copy/move operations. The detailed descriptions help clarify, but the boundaries aren't always obvious.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows predictable patterns: bucket_<verb> for bucket-level actions, bucket_file_<verb> for file operations, bucket_publication_<verb> for publications, and website_preview_* for previews. Minor deviations like bucket_create_from_template, bucket_set_public_slug, and bucket_update_publication_access deviate slightly but remain readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 42 tools, the server is overweight for its scope. While the platform is feature-rich, many tools are narrowly specialized (e.g., bucket_publication_leads, bucket_lock_visibility_changes) and some are redundant (file_move vs file_rename vs file_reorganize), making the surface larger than necessary for an MCP server.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers the full bucket lifecycle and most file operations, but there is no direct file delete tool (only via delete_missing in write_many or cross-bucket move soft-delete) and binary uploads are explicitly delegated to the CLI/REST. These are notable gaps for a complete file management workflow.

Resources