Instant web publishing for AI agents. POST HTML, get a live URL. No account needed. Publish, update, and delete websites via MCP or REST API. Free tier includes 5MB sites with 24-hour expiry. Pro tier offers permanent hosting.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.5/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: publish creates, get_website_status reads, update modifies, and delete removes. There is no ambiguity between tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: publish_website, get_website_status, update_website, delete_website. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Four tools perfectly cover the core lifecycle for this simple service, with no redundancy. This is well within the typical 3-15 tool range.
The tool set provides complete CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) for websites, covering the entire domain of the service. No obvious gaps exist.
delete_websiteAInspectPermanently delete a published website. The site will be immediately inaccessible. Requires authentication via edit_key or api_key, and requires confirm: true as a safety mechanism to prevent accidental deletion. Use this when a user explicitly asks you to remove or delete a site. IMPORTANT: Always confirm with the user before calling this tool — deletion cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The slug of the site to delete (e.g. "hello-world-k3m"). | |
| api_key | No | The user's API key (e.g. "yt_abc123..."). | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be set to true to confirm deletion. This is a safety mechanism — the tool will refuse to delete without explicit confirmation. | |
| edit_key | No | The edit key for this site (e.g. "ek_9c4d2e7f..."). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses irreversibility ('deletion cannot be undone'), immediate unavailability, authentication requirements ('edit_key or api_key'), and the confirm:true safety mechanism. This exceeds what the schema alone communicates.
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?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect. Every sentence adds essential information: irreversibility, ack of immediate impact, auth requirement, confirm mechanism, and usage instruction. No filler or redundant detail.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all critical context: purpose, irreversibility, immediate impact, authentication prerequisites, required confirmation, and when to use. It appropriately emphasizes the safety barrier. No significant gaps remain for an agent to safely invoke this tool.
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 value by clarifying that authentication requires either edit_key or api_key — a constraint not explicit in the parameter schemas (which list them as optional). It also reinforces that confirm must be true as a safety mechanism, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.
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 tool's action: 'Permanently delete a published website.' It specifies the resource (published website) and the effect (immediately inaccessible), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_website_status, publish_website, and update_website.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when a user explicitly asks you to remove or delete a site.' It also includes a critical safety instruction to 'Always confirm with the user before calling this tool.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the scope of use is clear and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_website_statusAInspectGet information about a published website including its title, view count, size, expiry date, and whether it has been claimed. No authentication required — this is public information. Use this to check if a site is still live, see how many views it has gotten, or check when it expires.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The slug of the site to check (e.g. "hello-world-k3m"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no authentication is required and the information is public. It also enumerates the returned fields, giving a clear idea of behavior. While it doesn't mention edge cases like errors or rate limits, it provides strong transparency for a simple read operation.
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?
The description is concise, using two sentences to cover purpose and use cases. The most important information (what it does, the resource, key fields) is front-loaded, with no filler words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and no output schema, the description is complete. It provides the purpose, key returned data, auth status, and typical use cases. The sibling tools are all mutations, so this read-only status checker is well contextualized.
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?
The schema already has 100% coverage for the single 'slug' parameter, including an example. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond implying the slug is the site identifier, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool gets information about a published website and lists the specific data fields (title, view count, size, expiry date, claimed status). It distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools (delete, publish, update) by being a read operation.
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 provides explicit use cases: 'check if a site is still live, see how many views it has gotten, or check when it expires.' It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like delete/publish/update, but the read-only nature and use cases make it clear when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
publish_websiteAInspectPublish HTML content to a live URL instantly. No account or API key required. Returns a public URL that anyone can visit. Sites expire after 24 hours unless the owner claims them. Use this when a user asks you to build, create, or deploy a website, landing page, invitation, portfolio, report, or any HTML content they want to share as a link. Supports bundled assets (CSS, JS, images) and multi-page sites (include additional .html files in assets, accessible at /{slug}/{pagename}). IMPORTANT: After publishing, always share the live URL and the claim URL with the user. The claim URL lets them take permanent ownership of the site. Store the edit_key from the response silently — do not show it to the user — you will need it if they ask you to make changes to the site later. If you lose the edit_key, ask the user to claim the site first (via the claim URL in the page footer), then provide you with their API key from the dashboard — you can use that instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | Complete HTML document to publish. Must be a valid, self-contained page. Inline CSS and JS are supported. External resources (images, fonts, scripts) must use absolute URLs OR be included in the assets field with relative references (e.g. href="./style.css" or src="./logo.png"). Maximum total size including assets: 5.0MB (free tier) or 10 MB (Pro/Business). | |
| title | No | Human-readable title for the published page. Used in social sharing previews and the claim page. Optional. | |
| assets | No | Optional map of filename to content for bundled assets. Keys are filenames (e.g. "style.css", "logo.png", "app.js"). Values are either plain text strings (for CSS, JS, SVG, HTML) or data URIs for binary files (e.g. "..."). Reference these in your HTML with relative paths like ./style.css or ./logo.png. For multi-page sites, include additional .html files (e.g. "about.html") which become accessible at /{slug}/about. Limits: 10 assets (free) or 50 assets (Pro/Business), 5 MB max per individual asset, but total site size (HTML + all assets) must be under 5.0MB (free) or 10 MB (Pro/Business). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: no account/API key required, 24-hour expiration, asset support, and the critical workflow of sharing URLs and storing edit_key. It even explains the fallback if edit_key is lost, providing exceptional operational transparency.
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?
The description is fairly long but every sentence earns its place—explaining purpose, no auth, expiration, usage triggers, asset support, and critical post-publish instructions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the detailed operational steps make it somewhat lengthy.
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?
Given three parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool returns (public URL), expiration behavior, claim URL, edit_key storage, and alternative authentication. It fully equips the agent to use the tool correctly and handle follow-up actions.
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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains how to use assets with relative paths, multi-page site structure, and size limits. It also clarifies the purpose of the 'title' parameter in social sharing. This enriches rather than repeats the schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Publish HTML content to a live URL instantly'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_website and update_website. It clearly states the primary action and lists concrete use cases (website, landing page, invitation, portfolio, report).
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?
It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this when a user asks you to build, create, or deploy a website...'), providing clear contextual trigger. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tools are obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_websiteAInspectUpdate an existing published website with new HTML content. Requires authentication via edit_key (from the original publish response) or api_key (from the user's dashboard after claiming the site). The html field replaces the entire page — this is a full replacement, not a patch. You can also update assets. Use this when a user asks you to modify, edit, or change a site you previously published. IMPORTANT: You must provide either edit_key or api_key for authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | Complete HTML document to replace the existing page with. Must be a valid, self-contained page. This replaces the entire page content. | |
| slug | Yes | The slug of the site to update (e.g. "hello-world-k3m"). | |
| title | No | Optional new title for the page. | |
| assets | No | Optional map of filename to content. If provided, replaces ALL existing assets. Omit to keep existing assets unchanged. | |
| api_key | No | The user's API key from their dashboard (e.g. "yt_abc123..."). Use this if the user has claimed the site and provided their API key. | |
| edit_key | No | The edit key returned when the site was originally published (e.g. "ek_9c4d2e7f..."). Use this if you still have it from the publish response. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses authentication via edit_key or api_key, emphasizes full replacement rather than patch, and mentions asset updates. These add context beyond the schema, though it omits response behavior 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the primary purpose and generally compact. However, the authentication requirement is stated twice ('Requires authentication...' and 'IMPORTANT: You must provide...'), creating minor redundancy. Otherwise every sentence earns its place.
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 6-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authentication, replacement semantics, and asset updates. It does not explain return values or error handling, but the core operational context is well addressed. Optional parameters like title are left to the schema.
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. Description adds value by clarifying the html field is a full replacement and stressing the requirement for either edit_key or api_key. These insights supplement rather than merely repeat the schema.
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?
States the verb 'update', the resource 'existing published website', and the input 'new HTML content'. Distinct from sibling tools by emphasizing 'existing published' and 'previously published', clearly differentiating from publish_website.
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?
Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when a user asks you to modify, edit, or change a site you previously published.' Includes authentication requirements and full-replacement semantics. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
