brewpage-mcp

Change page data settings

configure_page_data

Change Page data access modes (private, shared, or author-only write) on an owned HTML page without republishing. Set the mode and write policy for each named list.

Instructions

Change the Page data settings of an owned HTML page or site without republishing. private = each visitor reads and writes only their own entries (default); shared = everyone reads, each visitor writes their own; shared + write author = only you write. The author always reads everything. Only what state names changes: a named list keeps every key the call omits (mode and write included), the other lists stay; a key set to null returns to its default; a list set to null loses its declaration and becomes private; state: null turns page data off (entries are kept). A private list that holds visitors' entries cannot become shared, so shared -> private cannot be undone while entries exist. Returns the stored settings and each named list's mode.

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": {
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "configure_page_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Publication ID
`state`	Yes	Settings to change, same shape as `state` on create: `{collections: {<name>: {mode, ...}}}`
`manageUrl`	No	The page's private management link (https://brewpage.app/manage/...#k=...); stands in for namespace, id and ownerToken.
`namespace`	No	Publication namespace
`ownerToken`	No	Owner token from create. Default: env BREWPAGE_OWNER_TOKEN (local server only).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.21.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the mode semantics (private/shared/write-author), the irreversibility constraint ('shared -> private cannot be undone while entries exist'), and that entries survive when page data is turned off. It also states the return value, which no output schema covers.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by mode definitions, mutation semantics, and return value in a logical order. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, but almost every clause carries non-obvious contract detail; only the mode enumeration could be trimmed slightly.

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?

For a five-parameter configuration tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation contract, the merging and null-reset rules, the guard against an illegal mode transition, and what is returned. An agent could call this correctly without opening the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the required `state` parameter: merge-vs-replace behavior, that omitted keys are preserved, that a null key reverts to default, and that a null list drops the declaration and falls back to private. The remaining parameters (id, manageUrl, namespace, ownerToken) are left entirely to the schema.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Change the Page data settings of an owned HTML page or site') plus a scope qualifier ('without republishing'), so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling set_page_data, so the agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

Usage is implied through the 'only what `state` names changes' contract and the 'without republishing' framing, which tells the agent this is a settings patch rather than a content update. However, it never states when to use this instead of set_page_data, get_page_data, or delete_page_data, and gives no prerequisites beyond 'owned' page.

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