Upload a .zip as site content for your reserved subdomain. Easiest for agents: zip_base64 (base64-encoded zip). Or file_url (public URL to zip). Or file_path (local path, when MCP runs locally).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_url | No | Public URL of a .zip file. | |
| file_path | No | Local path to a .zip file (for local/stdio MCP only). | |
| zip_base64 | No | Base64-encoded .zip content. Easiest for agents: create zip locally and pass here (no hosting needed). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / file_path / descriptionPrevious value: -"Local path to a .zip file (for local/stdio MCP)."New value: +"Local path to a .zip file (for local/stdio MCP only)."Input schema / properties / file_url / descriptionPrevious value: -"Public URL of a .zip file (for remote MCP on demo.st)."New value: +"Public URL of a .zip file."Input schema / properties / zip_base64Added value: +{
+ "description": "Base64-encoded .zip content. Easiest for agents: create zip locally and pass here (no hosting needed).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, whether the upload overwrites existing content, authentication requirements, or any outcomes. It only states the action without behavioral context.
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 and front-loaded, with the main purpose first, followed by clear parameter guidance in a structured list. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool is a mutating upload with no output schema or annotations. The description omits critical context such as overwrite behavior, prerequisites like reserving a subdomain or API key, and what the response contains. This leaves the agent under-informed for successful invocation.
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 covers all parameters, but the description adds practical guidance: zip_base64 is highlighted as easiest for agents, and file_path is noted for local/stdio MCP. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond 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 clearly states the tool uploads a .zip as site content for a reserved subdomain, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clear_site and reserve_subdomain by focusing on uploading content.
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 implies usage for a reserved subdomain and provides guidance on choosing among parameters (zip_base64, file_url, file_path), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: subdomain availability, site content, collections, records, and API keys. There is no meaningful overlap between tools like upload_site and create_collection, or delete_record and upsert_record. Even similar operations (reserve vs. release, create vs. delete) are clearly scoped.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores, such as check_subdomain_availability, clear_site, and rotate_site_api_key. Verb forms are uniform and predictable, making it easy to guess related operations. No mixed conventions or vague names.
With 13 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a demo platform covering subdomain management, site deployment, document storage, and API key handling. Each tool has a clear purpose, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range. No redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers nearly all essential workflows: subdomain lifecycle (reserve, check, release), site deployment (upload, clear), collection/record CRUD (create, delete, list, upsert), and API key management (get, rotate). Minor gaps exist, such as no update_collection or get_site details, but these are not critical for core usage. Overall, the surface is functionally complete for the stated purpose.