Skip to main content
Glama
viljamilaurila

HTML Cloud

by viljamilaurila
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

Update a shared HTML page

update_html
DestructiveIdempotent

Replace an already-shared HTML page through its private edit link; the share link stays the same and viewers see the new encrypted version. Use this to change or fix a page shared earlier.

Instructions

Replace the content of an HTML page that was already shared with share_html, using its private edit link. The share link stays exactly the same, so anyone who already has it sees the new version. The new HTML is encrypted locally with the same key as before; html.cloud never sees the content. Use this when the user asks to change, fix, revise, or add to a page you shared earlier in the conversation — pass the full updated HTML document, not a diff: inline as html, or as the path of an .html file as path. Use path for large pages; do not fall back to share_html if the document is too big to pass inline.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlNoThe complete, self-contained HTML document that replaces the current one. Use path instead for large documents.
pathNoAbsolute path of a local .html file whose content replaces the current page, instead of passing html inline.
edit_linkYesThe private edit link returned by share_html (https://html.cloud/e/{id}#{key}).
link_nameNoThe link_name given to share_html for this page, if any, so the returned share link matches the one already handed out.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / link_name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The link_name given to share_html for this page, if any, so the returned share link matches the one already handed out.",
+  "maxLength": 80,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real context beyond them: the share link is unchanged so existing recipients see the new version, content is encrypted locally with the same key, and the server never sees it. It also makes the full-replacement semantics explicit ('not a diff'), which explains why the operation is destructive yet idempotent. It stops short of documenting auth failures or error behavior, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Five dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and link-stability guarantee before the usage trigger and the html-vs-path mechanics. Every sentence earns its place, though the html/path advice slightly overlaps the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes (full document replacement), what is preserved (share link), the privacy model (local encryption), and how to supply large payloads. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds decision guidance the schema does not: pass the full updated document rather than a diff, and prefer path over html for large pages. It also clarifies edit_link's provenance (returned by share_html) and that link_name keeps the returned share link stable.

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 ('Replace the content of an HTML page that was already shared with share_html') and explicitly ties the resource to the sibling that created it. An agent can distinguish update_html from share_html without opening either schema.

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?

Names the explicit trigger ('when the user asks to change, fix, revise, or add to a page you shared earlier in the conversation') and adds a negative rule ('do not fall back to share_html if the document is too big'), routing the agent away from the sibling. Selection is unambiguous.

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