Carryo Website Publisher

Edit a Live Website

website.edit

Destructive

Replaces the complete HTML of an existing Carryo website while preserving its linkId and URL. Suitable for updating, fixing, or republishing a known page. Returns the website link and a Carryo management link. Access and edit limits are checked for the website identified by linkId. expectedVersionNumber detects conflicting edits. Supports adding or replacing hosted images and removing paths through removeAssetPaths. Image assets use relative HTML paths and exactly one source: a fileId matching a host-supplied imageFiles attachment, or a fetchable HTTP(S) sourceUrl. Carryo imports and hosts its own copy. Base64 image bytes and data URLs are unsupported. Form validation can return requires_adaptation or requires_entitlement with publicationPerformed false, meaning the requested update was not applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`forms`	No	Optional definitions for JavaScript/React forms using window.CarryoForms.submit(key, values), which resolves on acceptance and rejects on failure. Stable keys and field names identify forms across edits. Static collection forms are inferred from data-carryo-form="key" and named controls without duplicate definitions; placeholder submit handlers can block collection. Local calculator/filter forms use data-carryo-local and do not collect responses. Existing external endpoints retain their destination. Visitor acknowledgement is disabled unless explicitly enabled.
`assets`	No	Optional image assets to add or replace. Each entry requires a relative HTML path and exactly one of fileId (matching imageFiles[].file_id) or sourceUrl (a fetchable HTTP(S) image URL). Existing images are preserved when omitted. The hosted-image allowance applies to the final website collection; replacing an existing path does not use another slot. Base64 bytes and data URLs are unsupported.
`linkId`	Yes	Carryo page link identifier to update
`fileName`	No	Optional replacement file name
`expiresAt`	No	Optional ISO-8601 expiration timestamp
`imageFiles`	No	Optional image attachments supplied by a compatible host, with file_id and download_url. Each attachment is mapped to a relative HTML path by an assets entry with the matching fileId. Temporary download URLs are import sources, not hosted image URLs. Clients without file input support can omit this field.
`htmlContent`	Yes	Updated complete HTML for the Carryo page while keeping the same URL.
`sharingMode`	No	Optional replacement publishing mode. Only public live links are supported here.
`removeAssetPaths`	No	Optional relative asset paths to remove from the page asset bundle.
`expectedVersionNumber`	No	Expected current website version number for detecting conflicting edits.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No
`forms`	No
`linkId`	No	Carryo page link identifier
`status`	No
`message`	No
`guidance`	No
`shareUrl`	No	Primary share URL
`expiresAt`	No	Optional ISO-8601 expiration timestamp
`manageUrl`	No	Carryo web-app URL for managing the link URL, password, views, and edit history
`updatedAt`	No	ISO-8601 update timestamp
`workspaceId`	No	Workspace that owns the link; omitted for Personal
`alternateShareUrls`	No	Alternate share URLs, when available
`currentVersionNumber`	No
`publicationPerformed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing destructive semantics ('Replaces the complete HTML'), preserving linkId/URL, returning management links, checking access and edit limits, using expectedVersionNumber for conflict detection, and explaining failure states (requires_adaptation/requires_entitlement with publicationPerformed false). It also details asset hosting behavior and unsupported formats. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true.

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 dense but appropriately sized for a tool with 10 parameters and complex asset/form behavior. The core action is front-loaded, but later sections cover asset rules, form rules, and failure conditions in a somewhat list-like way that could be structured more cleanly. Still, every sentence contributes information.

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 complexity, the description covers the full lifecycle: what it does, what it preserves, what it returns, access and versioning checks, image asset constraints, form semantics, and failure modes where the update is not applied. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return shapes, and nothing important appears missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial operational meaning beyond the schema: the mutual exclusivity and import behavior of fileId/sourceUrl, 'Base64 bytes and data URLs are unsupported,' the semantics of removeAssetPaths, expectedVersionNumber's conflict-detection role, and detailed behavior of forms. This richly compensates for the many parameters and nested structures.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces the complete HTML of an existing Carryo website while preserving its linkId and URL.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as website.edit_images (image-only edits) and website.publish (publishing/scheduling), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

The description gives clear context: 'Suitable for updating, fixing, or republishing a known page.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'complete HTML' scope strongly implies when this tool is appropriate versus image-only or draft-only operations, which is enough for an agent to make a routing decision.

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

All Carryo Website Publisher 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.

Resources

Need Help?