Skip to main content
Glama
kochetkov-ma

brewpage-mcp

by kochetkov-ma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_html

Modify an existing BrewPage HTML or Markdown page with its owner token, keeping the public link and delivery mode intact while returning updated page metadata.

Instructions

Update an existing BrewPage HTML/Markdown page. Requires owner token. Returns the updated page metadata. The link and delivery mode never change on update; an advisory deliveryModeReason and delivery notice are included when the new content uses browser features that may not work fully on a BrewPage link.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPage ID
formatNoContent format. Accepts (case-insensitive on html/markdown): 'html', 'markdown'/'md', or a code language — yaml, json, xml, csv, tsv, log, toml, ini, sql, sh, bat, env, javascript, typescript, tsx, jsx, css, properties, docker, txt. Omit to preserve the stored format.
contentYesNew HTML or Markdown content
namespaceYesPage namespace
ownerTokenNoOwner token from create. Default: BREWPAGE_OWNER_TOKEN.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.13.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / ownerToken / description
      Previous value: -"Owner token received when the page was created"New value: +"Owner token from create. Default: BREWPAGE_OWNER_TOKEN."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "namespace",
-  "id",
-  "content",
-  "ownerToken"
-]New value: +[
+  "namespace",
+  "id",
+  "content"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value: the link and delivery mode are immutable, an advisory deliveryModeReason and notice may be returned, and an owner token is required. It never states that 'content' replaces the existing page wholesale (a destructive implication) or what error conditions apply, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a write tool.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, the mutation and its prerequisite first, followed by return-value and immutability notes. Dense but no filler; the last sentence is long but conveys two distinct facts.

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 with no output schema, it covers the return value ('updated page metadata'), auth, and the advisory notice, which is more than most. The main omission is that content replacement semantics and failure modes are unstated, so it is nearly but not fully complete.

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 documents namespace, id, content, format, and ownerToken in detail. The description only echoes the owner-token requirement and format preservation, adding nothing parameter-level beyond structured fields.

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 ('Update an existing BrewPage HTML/Markdown page'), which is clearly distinguishable from create/publish actions in principle. It does not explicitly name the nearest siblings (publish_html, update_json) or explain how updating differs from republishing, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives one concrete prerequisite ('Requires owner token', default in schema) and notes that format may be preserved, but never says when to choose update_html over publish_html or republish_site, nor what conditions make an update fail. Usage is implied by 'existing page' rather than laid out.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools