@micropage-sh/mcp

Official

by micropage-sh

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Read a project's .page source

get_page_source

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a micropage project's raw .page source, llms.txt, and uploaded filenames for an active or older build. Use before editing to modify and save 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes	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.
`version`	No	Which 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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`build`	Yes	Null when the project has no builds yet.
`assets`	Yes	Filenames uploaded to the project, usable as `img: <- filename`. Null if the list could not be read.
`source`	Yes	The raw .page markup. Several files were merged into one when saved; edit it as landing.page.
`project`	Yes
`llms_txt`	Yes	The site's /llms.txt as stored on this build, if any.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's value is in the extra behavioral detail: the source is merged from all .page files when saved and returns as one file, it does not reveal what is live, and it does not download images. These are genuinely useful, non-obvious traits; only return-format/pagination behavior is left unstated.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with what is returned, then the workflow, then the explicit exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is wasted.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the merge behavior, version defaulting, and the two things it deliberately does not surface. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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 both parameters thoroughly, including the accepted project identifier forms and the version build-number/id syntax. The description only adds that version can be used to restore an older build, which is marginal beyond the schema and leaves the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the raw .page markup of a micropage project's active build') and enumerates the full payload (source, stored llms.txt, uploaded filenames). It is clearly distinguishable from get_project and save_page, which it names by contrast.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('Call it before editing an existing site: change the returned source and send the whole file back with save_page') and when its sibling is the right tool instead ('get_project tells you which build is deployed'). The version parameter's use case (restoring an older build) is also stated.

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