lucid.page

Update a published document

update_doc

Replace the Markdown of a page you own (requires an lp_ API key). The URL stays the same; every update is kept as a revision. Pass expected_version (from get_doc) to guard against overwriting someone else's changes — a conflict returns 409 with current_version.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "markdown": "<markdown>"
    },
    "name": "update_doc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	The document slug — the path part of its https://lucid.page/<slug> URL.
`title`	No	Optional new title; omit to keep the current one.
`markdown`	Yes	The new Markdown source (max 1 MB).
`expected_version`	No	Optional optimistic-lock guard: the version you last read. Saves only if it still matches.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`version`	No	Monotonic save counter; pass as expected_version next time
`visibility`	Yes
`revision_hash`	Yes	Content hash of the new revision

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_version

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional optimistic-lock guard: the version you last read. Saves only if it still matches.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / version

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Monotonic save counter; pass as expected_version next time",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedAug 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only assert non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description goes beyond by disclosing that every update creates a revision, the URL remains unchanged, a mismatch returns 409 with current_version, and an API key is required. These concrete behavioral traits give the agent a clear picture of effects and failure modes.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the essential action and prerequisite, the second covers side effects, and the third explains the conflict guard. Every sentence earns its place and the information is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is comprehensive enough: it covers ownership, prerequisites, return-state behavior (conflict), and versioning. An agent can confidently call this tool with the provided schema plus these behavioral notes.

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?

Schema already has 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational meaning to expected_version: how to obtain it (from get_doc) and what happens on conflict (409 with current_version). It also frames markdown as 'replace' rather than merely 'update', clarifying the overwrite semantics.

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 starts with a precise verb phrase 'Replace the Markdown of a page you own' and the resource (published document), making the tool's core function unmistakable. It also distinguishes from siblings by naming the ownership requirement and the update (rather than create/delete/publish) nature.

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?

The description provides clear operational context: it explicitly states the authorization requirement (lp_ API key) and gives a concrete workflow for safe updates — read expected_version via get_doc and pass it to guard against overwrites. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this one, but the context implies it is the update tool among the siblings.

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

All lucid.page tools Inspect

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

Need Help?