Skip to main content
Glama

Revdoku

by com.revdoku

Bucket Publish Preview

bucket_publish_preview

Queue an async PREVIEW publish of the current saved draft to a temporary 'preview-' URL. Every preview expires after 15 minutes. Previews may use paid settings (including Password or Require Email) on Free so the user can evaluate them before upgrading; they stay noindex, do not affect the main website, and do not count against live/private-site limits. Re-running republishes to the same preview slug with a new 15-minute window. Check bucket_publication_get for ready/failed, then share the preview URL, any protected-site password/share text, and its expiry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoHuman-readable title for the bucket or website publication.
passwordNoPassword preview only. Omit to generate one.
bucket_idYesRevdoku bucket id returned by bucket_list or bucket_get, for example bkt_...
site_modeNoWebsite routing mode: static or spa.
site_typeNoDeprecated MCP alias for site_mode. Use site_mode for static or spa routing.
access_modeNoTarget website access mode: public, password, or require_email.
descriptionNoOptional human-readable description for the bucket or website publication.
tracking_enabledNoConvenience toggle that sets analytics_enabled and client_events_enabled when the specific fields are omitted.
analytics_enabledNoEnable or disable server-side website analytics for this publication.
access_info_fieldsNoVisitor information fields to request on the protected website access form.
regenerate_passwordNoWhen true, rotate the protected-site password to a new Revdoku-generated value.
client_events_enabledNoEnable or disable browser-side Revdoku client event tracking for this publication.
access_comment_requiredNoFor protected sites with a comment field, require visitors to enter a comment (defaults to optional).
access_comment_placeholderNoFor protected sites, custom placeholder text shown in the visitor comment box on the access form.
publication_root_directoryNoValue for publication root directory.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidanceNo
publicationYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: async execution, 15-minute expiry, re-run republishing to same slug, noindex/no-impact/no-limit guarantees, and explicit pointer to bucket_publication_get for status. This is exactly the kind of side-effect documentation needed.

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?

Five focused sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information: action, expiry, free-tier evaluation benefits, re-run behavior, and follow-up steps. No redundancy; the most important action is front-loaded.

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?

Covers the full async workflow (queue, monitor via bucket_publication_get, share URL/password/expiry) and addresses open-world side effects (no index, no impact, no limits). Output schema handles return values, so description is complete for invocation.

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 already describes 100% of parameters, so description doesn't need to iterate them. It adds a small semantic link by mentioning password/require_email as paid settings evaluated via preview, but this is marginal and doesn't go beyond schema descriptions.

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 specifies a clear action ('Queue an async PREVIEW publish') with a distinct resource ('current saved draft' to 'preview-<slug> URL'). It differentiates from siblings like bucket_publish and website_preview_create by emphasizing the temporary, async, preview-specific nature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear usage context: previews expire in 15 minutes, allow evaluating paid settings on Free, stay noindex, and don't affect the main site. Does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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