Augenix

Start website preview build

start_build

Use this when the user wants a live preview website for a local service business AND has typed business_name, email, and phone in THIS chat. Never reuse name, email, or phone from memory or an earlier conversation. If they only said "build me a website", ask first. Do not invent placeholders. Tell them they can change details after the preview. Then call get_preview until preview_url is set. Do not scrape /build. Do not start_build twice for the same business.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	City
`email`	Yes	Real inbox from the user. We send the preview here. Do not use example.com or placeholders.
`phone`	Yes	Real business phone from the user. Do not invent 555 numbers.
`state`	No	State, e.g. TX
`address`	No	Optional street address. Skip unless the user offers it. Do not ask for owner name.
`industry`	Yes	Trade. Prefer a slug: plumbing, hvac, electrical, landscaping, roofing, painting, steel, other. plumber, electrician, HVAC, painter, roofer, landscaper, and similar wording are mapped on the server. Unknown trades become other.
`business_name`	Yes	Real business name from the user. Do not invent.
`industry_other`	No	Required when industry is other

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`token`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`preview_url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the async workflow with get_preview, the idempotency warning, and the requirement to use real user-supplied information. It does not describe the exact response, but an output schema exists.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core trigger condition, followed by constraints, workflow, and safety warnings. Nothing is vague or redundant to the point of waste.

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 tool with 8 parameters and a follow-up polling requirement, the description is remarkably complete: it covers prerequisites, value sourcing, missing-information handling, placeholder prohibition, changeability, polling, and duplicate-call prevention. The output schema handles return-value expectations.

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. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by emphasizing that name, email, and phone must come from this chat, never from memory, and must not be invented. This is crucial for parameter correctness.

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's purpose: starting a live preview website build for a local service business. It also gives the exact trigger condition ('wants a live preview website' + details typed in chat), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_preview and get_live_site.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: only when business_name, email, and phone were typed in this chat. It also gives when-not-to-use guidance: don't reuse old details, ask first if only 'build me a website', don't start twice, and call get_preview until preview_url is set.

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

All Augenix tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct stage in the workflow: building the preview, polling preview readiness, creating checkout, and checking live status. The descriptions reinforce the boundaries, especially between get_preview and get_live_site.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern and are mostly consistent: get_preview and get_live_site share get_, and create_checkout uses create_. start_build is a minor deviation since 'start' could have been 'create' or 'build', but the naming remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is appropriate for this focused preview-and-live-site pipeline. Each tool covers an essential step without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.

Completeness3/5

The core flow from build to preview to checkout to live site is covered, but the start_build description explicitly says users can change details after the preview, and no update or edit tool exists. This leaves a notable dead end for post-preview modifications.

Resources

Need Help?