ship.page

Deploy a single HTML page

deploy_html

Destructive

Deploy one HTML document and get back a live, unguessable https://.shipped.run/ URL. Anonymous: 10 deploys/min per IP, 10MB body cap, 30-day expiry. Pro ($4/mo): custom or no TTL, named drops.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ttl`	No	Lifetime in seconds (min 60). Anonymous: max 2592000 (30 days), default 30 days. Signed-in free: max 7776000 (90 days), default 90 days. Paid: any value, omit for no expiry.
`html`	Yes	The full HTML document to publish.
`name`	No	Stable name for a redeployable drop (1-41 chars of [a-z0-9-]). Requires an active subscription; Team accounts serve it on their vanity subdomain.
`email`	No	Contact email for an anonymous deploy: the one-time claim link is mailed to it, so the drop stays recoverable even if the claim_token from the response is lost. Pass it whenever the deploy is for a human. Ignored for authenticated deploys (those are owned already).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`name`	No
`plan`	Yes
`slug`	Yes	Drop slug; the site is live at https://<slug>.shipped.run/
`files`	Yes
`replaced`	No	Present with named deploys; true when an existing drop was replaced
`expires_at`	Yes	ISO timestamp, or null when the drop never expires
`claim_token`	No	One-time claim token (spc_...), present only on anonymous deploys and shown once. Anyone holding it can attach the drop to an account via claim_drop.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedSep 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / ttl / description

Previous value: -"Lifetime in seconds (min 60). Anonymous: max 604800 (7 days), default 7 days. Signed-in free: max 2592000 (30 days), default 30 days. Paid: any value, omit for no expiry."New value: +"Lifetime in seconds (min 60). Anonymous: max 2592000 (30 days), default 30 days. Signed-in free: max 7776000 (90 days), default 90 days. Paid: any value, omit for no expiry."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / slug / description

Previous value: -"Drop slug; the site is live at https://<slug>.shipped.page/"New value: +"Drop slug; the site is live at https://<slug>.shipped.run/"

Changed1 schema field changedAug 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / email

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Contact email for an anonymous deploy: the one-time claim link is mailed to it, so the drop stays recoverable even if the claim_token from the response is lost. Pass it whenever the deploy is for a human. Ignored for authenticated deploys (those are owned already).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / ttl / description

Previous value: -"Lifetime in seconds (min 60). Free: max 604800 (7 days), default 7 days. Paid: any value, omit for no expiry."New value: +"Lifetime in seconds (min 60). Anonymous: max 604800 (7 days), default 7 days. Signed-in free: max 2592000 (30 days), default 30 days. Paid: any value, omit for no expiry."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / claim_token

Added value: +{
+  "description": "One-time claim token (spc_...), present only on anonymous deploys and shown once. Anyone holding it can attach the drop to an account via claim_drop.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, destructive=true, and idempotent=false, and the description adds concrete operational context: unguessable URL, anonymous rate limit, body cap, and expiry policies. However, despite destructiveHint=true, it does not explain overwrite/replace semantics for redeploying a named drop, though this is a minor gap given the schema covers 'redeployable drop'.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the core action and result, the second packs the most important constraints and plan tiers into a compact clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The definition is largely complete for a moderate-complexity deploy tool: it covers the primary outcome, limits, expiry, and plan differences, while the rich input schema and output schema carry the remaining detail. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly pointing to deploy_files for multi-file deploys, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already has a rich description including defaults, constraints, and edge cases. The description summarizes ttl/name concepts but does not meaningfully add beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb and resource — 'Deploy one HTML document' — and states the expected outcome: a live, unguessable URL. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling deploy_files by emphasizing 'one HTML page/document'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies the single-HTML-file use case, but it never explicitly names deploy_files as the alternative for multiple files or gives when-to-prefer conditions. It provides tier context (anonymous vs Pro) but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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

All ship.page 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or lifecycle action: deploy_html vs deploy_files separate single-file from multi-file deploys, append_files adds to an existing drop, and claim/restore/delete/list cover different drop states. There is no meaningful overlap between tool purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All nine tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. deploy_html, deploy_files, list_drops, restore_drop. The verbs clearly indicate the action and the nouns indicate the target resource.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well-scoped for a deployment service covering deploy, file management, lifecycle, and account/limit information. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary redundancy or overwhelming surface area.

Completeness4/5

The core drop lifecycle is covered: deploy, append files, claim, list, delete, and restore, plus account and limits context. Minor gaps exist around per-file updates/overwrites and named-drop redeployment not being exposed as an explicit tool, but agents can accomplish the main workflows.

Resources

Need Help?