Orivox AI Website Builder

publish_website

Publish a built Orivox website live.

Omit domain_guid to publish to a FREE Orivox subdomain (the domain itself needs no paid plan). Pass a domain_guid returned by list_domains to publish to an OWNED custom domain (that needs an active plan with a free domain slot). The site must already be built (create_project + create_new_site) before publishing -- publishing an empty project is refused with byoa_publish_no_files. Publishing can take up to a minute while the production CSS build runs, so allow for a slow response.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain_guid`	No
`project_guid`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

Changed3 schema fields changedAug 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / project_guid
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
removedInput schema / properties / project_id
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "project_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_guid"
+]

First observedAug 4, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well. It discloses that publishing can take up to a minute due to the production CSS build, that empty projects are refused with a specific error (byoa_publish_no_files), and that plan/subdomain nuances may affect success. This is far beyond the minimum for a publish operation.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear sentence for purpose, a detailed but focused passage (two sentences) for domain options and requirements. Every sentence earns its object, and no unnecessary filler is present.

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 command has 2 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the text sufficiently covers all relevant dimensions: purpose, parameter semantics, usage conditions, unexpected impacts (time delay, errors), and the preconditions. There is also an explicit error indication, which helps an agent anticipate a controlled failure.

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 and 0% and there are only 2 parameters, the description compensates fully: it explains project_guid is the required project and that the project must already be built, and domain_guid is optional, its default behavior (free subdomain), and how to obtain/use it for a custom domain (referred to list_domains). The overview adds semantics beyond what the bare input schema provides.

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 begins with 'Publish a built Orivox website live', which clearly states the action (publishing), the target resource (website), and the state (live). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like build_site and create_new_site by describing the act of taking an already-built site to production.

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?

The description explicitly explains both usage paths: omit domain_guid for a free subdomain, or pass a domain_guid for a custom domain. It also provides necessary prerequisites (the site must be built via create_project + create_new_site) and references list_domains as the source for domain_guid, which helps an agent select and use the tool correctly.

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

All Orivox AI Website Builder 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.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools pair a distinct action with a distinct resource and long descriptions make intent clear. Still, `search_domains` already provides exact-domain checks, overlapping with `check_domain`, and the `create_project` vs `create_new_site` vs `create_page` cluster takes careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

The vast majority are snake_case verb_noun: list_projects, create_project, delete_page, get_preview_url, write_asset, query_database, publish_website. The only visible outlier is whoami, but it is standard enough that it does not disrupt predictability.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this is meaningfully heavier than the rubric's 'too many' threshold, even though the scope spans websites, backends, domains, gallery images, and databases. It makes selection harder and a sizeable portion of the surface is niche or lifecycle internal.

Completeness4/5

The core site lifecycle is well covered: project, htmlmanag, assets, preview/publish, validation, deletion, uploaded images, backend files/logs, database reading, domain search and purchase linking. Workable non-critical gaps exist, e.g. no separate project metadata rename and no direct way to delete database rows or a database outside of deleting the project.

Resources

Need Help?