Skip to main content
Glama

Orivox AI Website Builder

by org.orivox
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

unpublish_website

Take a published website OFFLINE -- the undo of publish_website.

Use when the user wants their site taken down, made private again, or wants to free a domain so it can serve a DIFFERENT website. Ask them to confirm first if the request is ambiguous: the site stops being reachable for real visitors immediately.

NOTHING IS DELETED. The project, its pages, its images and its content all survive -- this only stops serving them. publish_website puts the site back. Say this plainly when confirming, because "unpublish" sounds permanent and it is not.

What happens to the address:

  • a CUSTOM domain is released -- it stops serving, its plan domain slot comes back, and the domain stays in the account (list_domains still shows it, and it can be published to again, including to a different project);

  • a FREE Orivox subdomain is parked but KEPT for this project, so republishing later returns the SAME address rather than a new random one. Tell the user their address is preserved.

Safe to call twice: a project that was not published reports was_published=false and nothing changes. To delete a project entirely (irreversible) use delete_project instead -- these are different actions and must not be confused.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_guidYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
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 exceeds it. It discloses reversibility ('NOTHING IS DELETED'), immediate impact on visitors, custom-domain versus free-subdomain behavior, address preservation, and idempotency when calling twice on an unpublished project.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: main action first, then usage guidance, then behavioral effects, then idempotency and the delete_project distinction. The use of bullet points and bolded terms makes the structure easy to scan.

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 a single parameter, no annotations, and an output schema that covers return shape, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers prerequisites, side effects, reversibility, domain handling, idempotency, and the critical distinction from delete_project.

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 0%, and the description never explicitly explains that project_guid identifies the project whose website should be unpublished. However, the single parameter is strongly self-documenting and the description repeatedly references 'project,' so an agent can infer the mapping without real ambiguity.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Take a published website OFFLINE' and explicitly identifies itself as 'the undo of publish_website.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings such as publish_website and delete_project.

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 states when to use the tool ('user wants their site taken down, made private again, or wants to free a domain'), asks for confirmation when ambiguous, and names alternatives: 'publish_website puts the site back' and 'delete_project instead — these are different actions and must not be confused.'

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 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources