Skip to main content
Glama

Revdoku

by com.revdoku

Bucket Update Publication Access

bucket_update_publication_access

Change an already-published website's access settings WITHOUT republishing its files or URL. Use this to switch a live site between public, password, and Require Email, or rotate the password. Same-storage-class changes (e.g. password <-> Require Email, rotate password) are instant settings updates; switching public <-> protected re-keys the files and may take longer but keeps the site live. To publish a NEW VERSION of the files, use bucket_publish / bucket_publish_password_protected instead. Never put passwords in URLs. An access-mode change fails with BUCKET_VISIBILITY_CHANGE_LOCKED if the bucket's visibility is locked (unlocking is web-UI-only — ask the user); rotating the password or other same-access-mode settings stay allowed while locked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
passwordNoExact access password to set (the visitor's code, never placed in URLs). Omit to keep the current password; set regenerate_password to rotate it.
bucket_idYesRevdoku bucket id returned by bucket_list or bucket_get, for example bkt_...
access_modeNoTarget access mode: public, password, or require_email. Omit to keep the current mode.
access_info_fieldsNoVisitor information fields to request on the protected website access form.
regenerate_passwordNoRotate to a new auto-generated password. Ignored when an explicit password is provided.
access_comment_requiredNoFor protected sites with a comment field, require visitors to leave a comment (defaults to optional).
access_comment_placeholderNoFor protected sites, custom placeholder text for the visitor comment box on the access form. Omit for the default.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidanceNo
publicationYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but description goes far beyond by explaining performance implications (instant vs re-keying), that the site stays live, the BUCKET_VISIBILITY_CHANGE_LOCKED error, and that unlocking is web-UI-only. It also adds safety context about never putting passwords in URLs. 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose, mode-switching semantics, timing differences, alternative tools, password safety, and error handling. The main verb and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool's 7 parameters, mutating nature, and output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what it changes, what stays unchanged, performance implications, failure mode, usage boundaries, and security. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional context.

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 already has 100% parameter documentation, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance: omitting password keeps current, regenerate_password rotates it, switching public<->protected triggers re-keying, and passwords must never go in URLs. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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?

Description clearly states the tool changes access settings on an already-published website without republishing files or URL, and lists the specific modes (public, password, Require Email). It distinguishes itself from sibling publish tools by explicitly noting this is not for publishing new file versions.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (switching access modes or rotating password on a live site), and explicitly directs to bucket_publish / bucket_publish_password_protected for publishing new versions. Also covers the locked-visibility edge case with instructions to ask the user, giving clear alternatives and exclusions.

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