Revdoku

Bucket Publish Password Protected

bucket_publish_password_protected

Destructive

Queue an async publish or republish of the bucket's saved draft with Password or Require Email access. New accounts start on the permanent Free plan, which includes one Password website; Require Email requires payment for a permanent main site but can be evaluated with bucket_publish_preview on Free. Preview with the requested protected access first; if this tool returns PUBLICATION_UPGRADE_REQUIRED, share the protected preview and error.details.upgrade_url as the upgrade link, not the API documentation, then retry only after the user upgrades. Never silently fall back to Public. Require Email verifies visitors by OTP with no shared password and supports an optional email/domain allowlist. Password mode generates a password when needed and returns copyable password/share text to authorized owner publish keys after publish_state is ready. Never put passwords in URLs. Fails with BUCKET_VISIBILITY_CHANGE_LOCKED if the bucket's visibility is locked; unlocking is web-UI-only. After publishing sensitive data, consider offering to lock visibility with bucket_lock_visibility_changes. Published content is subject to Revdoku's Acceptable Use Policy (https://revdoku.com/acceptable-use).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Human-readable title for the bucket or website publication.
`password`	No	Password mode only: exact password/PIN supplied by the user. Omit it to auto-generate one.
`bucket_id`	Yes	Revdoku bucket id returned by bucket_list or bucket_get, for example bkt_...
`site_mode`	No	Omit 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_type`	No	Deprecated compatibility alias for site_mode.
`access_mode`	No	Omit on republish to keep the current protected access mode; first publish defaults to password.
`description`	No	Optional bucket description shown after the title on the access screen.
`tracking_enabled`	No	Convenience toggle that sets both analytics_enabled and client_events_enabled when the specific fields are omitted.
`analytics_enabled`	No	Enable or disable website analytics recording for this publication.
`access_info_fields`	No	Visitor information fields to request on the protected website access form.
`regenerate_password`	No	Password mode only: rotate the password when the user explicitly asks.
`client_events_enabled`	No	Enable or disable browser-side Revdoku event tracking for this publication.
`access_comment_required`	No	Protected sites only: require a configured comment field (defaults to optional).
`access_comment_placeholder`	No	Protected sites only: custom placeholder for the visitor comment box.
`publication_root_directory`	No	Optional: publish ONLY this top-level folder as the website root. 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`guidance`	No
`publication`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: publishing is async, PUBLICATION_UPGRADE_REQUIRED is a possible failure, BUCKET_VISIBILITY_CHANGE_LOCKED occurs when visibility is locked, unlocking is web-UI-only, password generation returns copyable text to authorized owner publish keys, and Require Email uses OTP with optional allowlist. These details are highly valuable and do not contradict the annotations.

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 description is longer than typical, but it is dense and front-loaded with the primary purpose before branching into upgrade handling, error cases, mode differences, and safety guidance. It could be more structured with separated guidance, but every sentence contributes useful operational context for a complex tool.

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?

Given the 15-parameter schema and existing output schema, the description covers the critical operational context an agent needs: async queuing, upgrade fallback path, failure modes, mode-specific behavior, security restrictions, and follow-up recommendations. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for access_mode and password: Password mode auto-generates passwords and returns copyable share text, while Require Email verifies by OTP and supports an allowlist. It also clarifies security constraints like never putting passwords in URLs, which is not fully captured in the schema.

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 with Password or Require Email access.' It clearly distinguishes itself from related siblings such as bucket_publish_preview and bucket_publish, and names the lock-visibility sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use instructions: preview with protected access first, share the preview and error.details.upgrade_url if PUBLICATION_UPGRADE_REQUIRED, retry only after upgrade, and never silently fall back to Public. It also names bucket_lock_visibility_changes as a follow-up option, providing clear routing guidance.

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

All Revdoku 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

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.

Bucket Publish Password Protected

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources