Skip to main content
Glama
@micropage-sh/mcp

@micropage-sh/mcp

Official

Read a project's .page source

get_page_source
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads a micropage project's active or specified build source, llms.txt, and uploaded filenames so you can edit the full .page markup and save it back.

Instructions

Return the raw .page markup of a micropage project's active build (or of a given build number), plus its stored llms.txt and the filenames uploaded to the project.

Call it before editing an existing site: change the returned source and send the whole file back with save_page as landing.page. Pass version to read an older build, e.g. to restore it. The source was merged from all .page files when saved, so it comes back as one file.

Read-only; it does not show what is live (get_project tells you which build is deployed) and does not download images.

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": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "get_page_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYesWhich project: its uuid, its numeric id, its micropage hostname ("acme" or "acme.micropage.live") or its custom domain ("www.acme.com"). A full URL also works. Get valid values from list_projects.
versionNoWhich build's source to read: a build number ("v12" or 12) or id ("id:4567"). Defaults to the active build (the draft or published build the editor and CLI work on), else the latest build.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buildYesNull when the project has no builds yet.
assetsYesFilenames uploaded to the project, usable as `img: <- filename`. Null if the list could not be read.
sourceYesThe raw .page markup. Several files were merged into one when saved; edit it as landing.page.
projectYes
llms_txtYesThe site's /llms.txt as stored on this build, if any.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.15
    • changedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Previous value: -"Which project: its uuid, its numeric id, its micropage hostname (\"acme\" or \"acme.micropage.sh\") or its custom domain (\"www.acme.com\"). A full URL also works. Get valid values from list_projects."New value: +"Which project: its uuid, its numeric id, its micropage hostname (\"acme\" or \"acme.micropage.live\") or its custom domain (\"www.acme.com\"). A full URL also works. Get valid values from list_projects."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / project / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"micropage slug: the site lives at https://<domain>.micropage.sh."New value: +"micropage slug: the site lives at https://<domain>.micropage.live."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the source is a merge of all .page files returned as one file, it does not reveal what is deployed, and it does not download images. It stops short of noting response size or any limits on large projects, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to call it, then boundaries. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is boilerplate.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it still characterizes the merged single-file result and the llms.txt/filenames payload. Combined with the explicit non-capabilities, an agent has everything needed to choose and call this tool correctly.

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 version parameter's description already explains build numbers, ids, and the active-build default. The prose only adds the intent behind passing version (restoring an older build), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: returns the raw .page markup of a project's active or specified build, plus stored llms.txt and uploaded filenames. It clearly separates itself from siblings by naming get_project for deployment state and save_page for the write path.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow trigger ('Call it before editing an existing site'), the follow-up action (send the full file back via save_page as landing.page), and the alternative for a different question (get_project for what is live). Version usage for restoring an older build is also spelled out.

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