htmlkin.io

Fully update a site

htmlkin_update

Updates a previously published site by its ID: replaces the content (html_content or files — at most one) and/or changes the PIN and visibility. An update always replaces the whole site: html_content turns a multi-file site into a single-file one. The site URL stays the same. Pass only pin and/or visibility to change just the protection or visibility.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>"
    },
    "name": "htmlkin_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pin`	No	4 digits — set or change the PIN; an empty string removes the PIN.
`files`	No	New full set of the site's text files; up to 20 files / 2 MB.
`page_id`	Yes	Site ID (the id field from the htmlkin_publish response).
`comments`	No	Who can comment on selected text on the site: off — nobody; everyone — anyone signed in to htmlkin; team — the owner and the team, on the Business plan.
`visibility`	No	Who can open the site: public — anyone, search engines index it; link — anyone with the link, not indexed; team — the account's team members after signing in, on the Business plan; private — only the account owner after signing in.
`html_content`	No	New HTML document. Optional; not together with files.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it discloses that an update always replaces the whole site, that html_content downgrades a multi-file site to single-file, and that the URL is preserved. These are non-obvious mutation semantics beyond what the schema says.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the ID, then the destructive whole-site replacement caveat, then the narrow-change shortcut. Efficient, with only minor overlap between the 'replaces the content' clause and the later 'html_content turns a multi-file site into a single-file one.'

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A mutation tool with 6 params, no annotations and no output schema, and the description covers the key risk (whole-site replacement), the URL stability, and the narrow-update path. It lacks any statement about return value or what identifies the updated site, a small gap given no output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters like pin, visibility, files and html_content are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the mutually exclusive content choice, adding some value, but the field-level meaning is already in structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (updates a previously published site by ID) and enumerates exactly what can change: content, PIN, visibility. An agent can distinguish it from htmlkin_publish and htmlkin_delete without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: 'Pass only pin and/or visibility to change just the protection or visibility,' and 'at most one' of html_content or files. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative such as htmlkin_publish for new sites, 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 htmlkin.io tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?