brewpage-mcp

Rename page or site

set_title

Rename an HTML page or site title shown in gallery, profile, search, and link cards; the new title persists after republishing and the public link stays unchanged.

Instructions

Rename an HTML page or site: the title shown in the gallery, profile, search and link cards. Works when the publication's owner token is in a BrewPage profile (free sign-in at https://account.brewpage.app). The new title stays when you republish. Link unchanged.

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "namespace": "<namespace>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "set_title"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Publication ID
`type`	Yes	Publication type
`title`	No	New title, 1-200 characters, one line. Empty string: back to the title from the content. Omit: show the current title.
`namespace`	Yes	Publication namespace
`ownerToken`	No	Owner token from create. Default: env BREWPAGE_OWNER_TOKEN (local server only).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — the new title persists through republish, the link is unaffected, and an owner token from a signed-in profile is required. It stops short of describing failure modes (invalid token, title too long) or whether nested pages are retitled.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the scope limit, then auth, then persistence. Sentences are terse and each carries information, though the telegraphic fragments ("Link unchanged.") and the inline sign-in URL make it feel clipped rather than polished.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers effect, scope, persistence and auth prerequisites. Missing only edge-case behavior (unauthorized owner, title collisions, whether the empty-string reset is destructive), which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 the schema already documents id, type, namespace, ownerToken and the important title semantics (1-200 chars, empty string resets, omit to read current). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Rename an HTML page or site") and clarifies which title is affected — the one shown in gallery, profile, search and link cards — plus the negative scope "Link unchanged." That implicitly separates it from content/URL-mutating siblings like update_html or update_hosting, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete precondition for use: the publication's owner token must belong to a BrewPage profile, with a sign-in URL supplied. It does not state when to prefer this over update_html/update_json or what to do on auth failure, so alternatives are left implicit.

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