emma-for-agents

talk_to_emma

Destructive

Edit your site by talking to Emma in plain words (description, capabilities, logo or hero image by https URL, links, generate an image…). Requires the site key as Bearer token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	what to change on the site, in plain words (or "status")
`site_key`	No	your site key (sk_…), for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header; the Authorization: Bearer header wins when both are present
`image_urls`	No	optional https image URLs to use (logo, photo…)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	true when Emma answered
`code`	No	machine-readable reason when ok is false
`reply`	No	Emma's answer, plain text
`images`	No	URLs of images Emma generated or placed
`message`	No	what happened, in plain words
`tools_used`	No	the edits Emma applied (tool names)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / site_key

Added value: +{
+  "description": "your site key (sk_…), for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header; the Authorization: Bearer header wins when both are present",
+  "maxLength": 35,
+  "minLength": 35,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful auth context by stating it requires the site key as a Bearer token, but it does not disclose what destruction may occur, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 definition is two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and examples, then adding the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

With an output schema, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain return values or parameter details. It covers purpose, examples, and auth, but could be stronger by explicitly routing against sibling tools or warning about live/destructive edits.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples of what the 'message' parameter can contain (description, capabilities, links, generate an image) and reinforces the image URL use case, giving meaning beyond the schema's generic field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Edit your site by talking to Emma in plain words.' The examples of editable content (description, capabilities, logo/hero image, links, generate an image) further clarify scope and distinguish this from sibling tools create_site, site_status, and confirm_site.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when the tool is used — to edit an existing site via plain-language conversation — but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. No sibling tool is mentioned for routing, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

All emma-for-agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?