Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cloudbase-html-mcp

cloudbase-html-mcp

by zyfasos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

hosting_status

Read-only

Verify local configuration and API key validity, and check whether static hosting is online. Read-only; success does not guarantee upload permission.

Instructions

检查本地配置、API Key 换取凭据和静态托管在线状态。只读；成功不代表拥有上传权限。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "hosting_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this. It adds the valuable nuance that a successful status check does not guarantee upload permissions, providing context beyond what annotations convey. This is a useful behavioral caveat.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and adds the critical caveat about permissions in a compact manner.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description adequately covers what it checks and its safety profile. It does not specify the return format, but given the simplicity and the readOnlyHint annotation, this is a minor gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing to clarify.

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 clearly states the tool checks local configuration, API key credential exchange, and static hosting online status. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_html, get_html, and offline_html which handle publishing, retrieval, and offline actions respectively.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for status checking by stating it is read-only and clarifying that success does not imply upload permission. This implicitly steers agents away from using it for upload operations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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