Skip to main content
Glama
viljamilaurila

HTML Cloud

by viljamilaurila
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

Update a shared HTML page

update_html
DestructiveIdempotent

Replace a previously shared HTML page via its private edit link; the original link serves the new version and content remains encrypted locally. Pass full updated HTML or a file path.

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

TableJSON 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}).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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 value beyond them by noting the share link is preserved, that content is encrypted locally with the prior key, and that html.cloud never sees the content. These are behavioral facts the annotations cannot express, and they are consistent with destructiveHint (content is replaced).

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its consequence (same share link, encryption), then the when-to-use clause, then the parameter guidance. Every sentence carries a fact an agent needs; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers what matters for the return path (the share link is unchanged) plus the security model and input sizing strategy. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 real decision guidance: html and path are mutually exclusive alternatives, path should be used for large pages, and the payload must be a complete document rather than a diff. That is meaningfully more than the schema alone conveys.

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 (replace) and resource (content of an HTML page previously shared) and explicitly names the sibling share_html as the origin of the page and edit link. An agent can distinguish this from share_html immediately.

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 explicit trigger conditions ('when the user asks to change, fix, revise, or add to a page you shared earlier'), the only valid input form (full document, not a diff), and an explicit non-alternative ('do not fall back to share_html if the document is too big').

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