Skip to main content
Glama
BACH-AI-Tools

EdgeOne Pages MCP

by BACH-AI-Tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

EdgeOne Pages MCP

An MCP service for deploying HTML content, folders, or full-stack projects to EdgeOne Pages and obtaining publicly accessible URLs.

基于原项目: 此项目基于 edgeone-pages-mcp 修改而来

Demo

Deploy HTML

Deploy Folder

Related MCP server: Self-Hosted EdgeOne Pages MCP Server

Requirements

  • Node.js 18 or higher

MCP Configuration

stdio MCP Server

Full-featured MCP service that supports the deploy_folder tool for deploying full-stack projects.

// Tencent Cloud International (Default)
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "edgeone-pages-mcp-server": {
      "timeout": 600,
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@bachstudio/edgeone-pages-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

// Tencent Cloud China
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "edgeone-pages-mcp-server": {
      "timeout": 600,
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@bachstudio/edgeone-pages-mcp", "--region", "china"]
    }
  }
}

The following MCP Server will be deprecated soon:

Supports both deploy_html and deploy_folder_or_zip tools.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "edgeone-pages-mcp-server": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@bachstudio/edgeone-pages-mcp"],
      "env": {
        // Optional. 
        // If you need to deploy folders or zip files to 
        // EdgeOne Pages projects, provide your EdgeOne Pages API token.
        // How to obtain your API token: 
        // https://edgeone.ai/document/177158578324279296
        "EDGEONE_PAGES_API_TOKEN": "",
        // Optional. Leave empty to create a new EdgeOne Pages project.
        // Provide a project name to update an existing project.
        "EDGEONE_PAGES_PROJECT_NAME": ""
      }
    }
  }
}

Streaming HTTP MCP Server

For MCP clients that support HTTP streaming, only supports the deploy_html tool.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "edgeone-pages-mcp-server": {
      "url": "https://mcp-on-edge.edgeone.site/mcp-server"
    }
  }
}

Tool Details

deploy_html Tool

Architecture Design

EdgeOne Pages MCP Architecture

The architecture diagram shows the complete workflow of the deploy_html tool:

  1. Large Language Model generates HTML content

  2. Content is sent to the EdgeOne Pages MCP Server

  3. MCP Server deploys the content to EdgeOne Pages Edge Functions

  4. Content is stored in EdgeOne KV Store for fast edge access

  5. MCP Server returns a publicly accessible URL

  6. Users can access the deployed content via browser with fast edge delivery

Implementation Details

This tool integrates with EdgeOne Pages Functions to deploy static HTML content:

  1. EdgeOne Pages Functions - A serverless computing platform that supports executing JavaScript/TypeScript code at the edge

  2. Core Implementation Features:

    • Uses EdgeOne Pages KV storage to save and serve HTML content

    • Automatically generates publicly accessible URLs for each deployment

    • Provides comprehensive API error handling and feedback

  3. How It Works:

    • MCP server receives HTML content through the deploy_html tool

    • Connects to EdgeOne Pages API to obtain the base URL

    • Deploys HTML content using the EdgeOne Pages KV API

    • Returns an immediately accessible public URL

For more information, refer to the EdgeOne Pages Functions documentation and EdgeOne Pages KV Storage Guide.

The source code is open source and can be self-deployed with custom domain binding: https://github.com/TencentEdgeOne/self-hosted-pages-mcp

deploy_folder Tool

This tool supports deploying complete projects to EdgeOne Pages:

  • Supports full deployment of static website projects

  • Supports deployment of full-stack applications

  • Option to update existing projects or create new ones

License

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
deploy_folder_or_zipC

Deploy a built frontend directory (or zip file) to EdgeOne Pages. Returns: the deployment URL and project metadata.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
builtFolderPathYesProvide the absolute path to the built frontend folder(or zip file) you wish to deploy.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deployment operation (implying a write/mutation) and mentions return values, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, whether deployment is reversible, or what happens to existing deployments. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the action and one stating the return values. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance from return information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a deployment/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'deploy' entails operationally, what permissions are needed, how deployments are managed, or what the return metadata includes. The mention of return values is helpful but insufficient given the tool's complexity and lack of structured documentation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that it accepts 'built frontend folder (or zip file)' but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Deploy'), the resource ('built frontend directory (or zip file)'), and the target ('EdgeOne Pages'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'deploy_html' by specifying it handles directories/zip files rather than HTML content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deploy_html'. It mentions the return values but doesn't explain prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for deployment. There's no explicit when/when-not usage advice.

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

deploy_htmlC

Deploy HTML content to EdgeOne Pages, return the public URL

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYesProvide the full HTML markup you wish to publish. After deployment, the system will generate and return a public URL where your content can be accessed.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 states the tool deploys HTML content and returns a public URL, but does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the deployment is permanent or temporary, error handling, or what happens to previous deployments. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and outcome without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clear functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a deployment tool. It does not explain the return value format beyond 'public URL', nor does it address potential errors, side effects, or integration details. For a tool that modifies external resources, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'value' clearly documented as 'full HTML markup' for publishing. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Deploy HTML content') and target resource ('to EdgeOne Pages'), with a specific outcome ('return the public URL'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'deploy_folder_or_zip' by specifying HTML content deployment rather than folder/zip deployment, though it could be more explicit about the distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'deploy_folder_or_zip' or other alternatives. It mentions the outcome but lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.0.15
    • First observeddeploy_folder_or_zip
    • First observeddeploy_html
Deploy Server
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

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: deploy_folder_or_zip handles directory or zip file deployments for built frontends, while deploy_html handles direct HTML content deployments. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern starting with 'deploy_' and clearly indicate their target (folder_or_zip vs. html). The naming is uniform and predictable throughout the set.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a deployment service. It lacks essential operations like listing deployments, updating or deleting them, or managing projects, which limits agent workflows and creates dead ends.

Completeness2/5

The toolset is severely incomplete for a deployment domain. It provides create-like operations (deploy) but lacks read, update, delete, or management functions (e.g., list_deployments, get_deployment_status, delete_deployment), making it difficult for agents to handle full lifecycle tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches