Publish complete HTML artifacts and return a public share URL.
Scored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no risk of confusion. The tool's purpose is clearly distinct by default.
Single tool uses a consistent verb_noun pattern (publish_html), which is clear and follows common conventions.
A single tool is on the low end for any server, but it may be appropriate for a very focused purpose like publishing HTML. However, it feels thin for broader use.
The server only provides creation/publishing functionality. There are no tools for listing, updating, or deleting published artifacts, leaving significant gaps for lifecycle management.
Publish a finished HTML artifact, report, dashboard, visualization, prototype, or interactive document and return a public share URL. Use when an agent has generated browser-ready HTML that should be shared outside the chat or workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | The raw HTML document to publish. | |
| title | No | Optional human-readable title for metadata. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It omits important details such as authentication requirements, URL persistence, size limits, or error handling for invalid HTML. The only behavior stated is returning a public URL.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the when-to-use guidance is separate and clear. Perfectly concise for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the output is a public URL. However, it lacks details on return format, error scenarios, or constraints (e.g., file size limits), making it just sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions ('The raw HTML document to publish' and 'Optional human-readable title for metadata'), so it remains at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Publish a finished HTML artifact...') and output ('return a public share URL'), with specific types listed. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use when an agent has generated browser-ready HTML that should be shared outside the chat or workspace.' There is no mention of when not to use, but given no sibling tools, this is clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
publish_html
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
