dochost-mcp

Update a dochost page

update_page

Destructive

Replace the content of one of your pages in place. The URL, view/like counts, and expiry stay the same; only the body, format, and title change. Resending identical content is a no-op. Prefer this over publishing again whenever the user is revising something you already published for them — a second publish creates a second link and strands the one they already shared.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`title`	No
`format`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`title`	No
`format`	No
`version`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedJun 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "format": {
+      "enum": [
+        "markdown",
+        "html"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "slug": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "version": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "slug"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJun 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: 'The URL, view/like counts, and expiry stay the same; only the body, format, and title change,' and 'Resending identical content is a no-op.' This gives the agent context about state preservation and idempotency, complementing the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and every clause adds value. The second sentence provides a clear usage heuristic and a rationale, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is complete for a mutating operation: it states what is changed, what is preserved, idempotency behavior, and when to prefer it over the sibling publish tool. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is appropriate. It covers all necessary operational context despite the absence of parameter schema descriptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the effect of three parameters (body, format, title) via 'only the body, format, and title change.' It does not explicitly describe the 'slug' parameter, but it is implied as the page identifier ('one of your pages') and needed for 'in place' replacement. The enum for format is not elaborated, but schema provides that.

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 'Replace the content of one of your pages in place,' which is a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly states the action. It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with publishing again, naming the exact fields that change (body, format, title) and what stays the same (URL, counts, expiry).

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: 'Prefer this over publishing again whenever the user is revising something you already published for them,' and explains why over publishing is harmful ('a second publish creates a second link and strands the one they already shared'). This clearly differentiates from the sibling publish tool.

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

All dochost-mcp 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.