artifact-site

Update a site

artifact_site_update

Destructive

Update a published artifact's content or rename its display title while keeping the same URL. Replace all contents with new HTML/files or change only the title.

Instructions

Update an existing remote artifact while keeping its address, or rename its display title. For 'replace this report with the new version', supply exactly one of html/files/upload_id AND expected_version from get_site/export. This replaces ALL contents; omitted files are removed. For 'rename this artifact', supply only slug and title: no content version is created. Do not combine a rename-only request with upload fields. Use edit for one text file. A 409 means someone changed the artifact: inspect it before explicitly choosing what to keep; staged bytes remain available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`html`	No	Complete HTML document; exclusive with files/upload_id.
`slug`	Yes	Artifact identifier returned by find/publish, or the slug in its /s/ URL. Not a local path.
`files`	No	Complete relative file tree with UTF-8 or base64 contents; exclusive with html/upload_id.
`title`	No	Display title; does not change the URL.
`official`	No	Designate the uploaded version as the only official version; replaces the old designation without deleting contents.
`tenant_id`	No	Destination tenant for creation; defaults to the account tenant.
`upload_id`	No	Completed upload ID from upload_start; supply instead of html/files after all files have final:true.
`share_token`	No	Token from a user-provided share URL; carries only that share permission.
`operation_key`	No	Persist a unique key before this write. Reuse exactly the same key and arguments after errors; recover results for seven days using operation_status.
`expected_version`	No	Required for content replacement; version ID read before editing. Omit for title-only changes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

While annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: content replacement removes omitted files, rename-only does not create a content version, and a 409 indicates a concurrent change with staged bytes remaining available. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects and recovery steps.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and then covering the two operation modes, the critical parameter constraints, the single-file alternative, and the 409 conflict behavior. Every sentence adds operational value without padding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—10 parameters, destructive behavior, multiple modes, and no output schema—the description covers the essential execution context: how to select the mode, which parameters to supply, what gets overwritten, when to use a sibling tool, and how to react to a conflict. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already documents each parameter at 100% coverage, the description adds essential cross-parameter semantics: exactly one of html/files/upload_id must be combined with expected_version, rename-only requests must include only slug and title, and combining rename with upload fields is forbidden. This transforms a flat parameter list into a usable set of operation modes.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific action on a specific resource: updating an existing remote artifact while preserving its address or renaming its display title. It further distinguishes the two modes (content replacement vs. rename-only) and explicitly points to artifact_site_edit for single-file edits, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: supply exactly one of html/files/upload_id with expected_version for replacement, use only slug and title for rename-only, do not combine them, and use edit for a single text file. This leaves almost no ambiguity about which parameters belong to which use case.

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

Update a site

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools