Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

xmagnet

by ai.xmagnet.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

clone_landing_page

Clone a landing page / web page from its URL into a NEW Xmagnet landing page, with its form. Works with the user's own landing pages (exact copy), another account's live Xmagnet page, and any public web page (its text, sections and images are rebuilt with AI; the page's form is cloned too). Optional instructions apply changes while cloning, including branding: 'rewrite it for my company', 'use acme.com logo and cover', 'with Nike logo', 'use my logo'. Use when the user shares a page link and says clone / copy / duplicate / 'make a page like this'. If the link is not a landing page it says so — tell the user plainly. Report logo/cover only as the result states; if a logo couldn't be found, ask the user to upload it (link in the result).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "clone_landing_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe page's URL exactly as the user gave it
titleNoOptional name for the new page
statusNoDefault active
instructionsNoOptional changes to make while cloning, in the user's words (incl. logo / cover requests)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that the operation creates a NEW page rather than mutating an existing one, that public pages are rebuilt with AI (text, sections, images), that the source form is cloned as well, and how logo/cover outcomes are reported. The one gap is that it never says whether cloning consumes credits or is rate-limited, which matters for a paid-generation operation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then sources, then the `instructions` examples, then trigger phrases, then result-handling guidance — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly overstuffed with the logo/report handling at the tail, but each sentence carries actionable information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers what is created, what is preserved (form), how source content is transformed, what the caller can steer via `instructions`, and how to interpret and act on the result (logo missing → ask user to upload via the link in the result). That is sufficient for an agent to call and follow up correctly.

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 earns extra credit by giving concrete `instructions` examples ('rewrite it for my company', 'use acme.com logo and cover') and by making clear logo/cover requests belong in that parameter. It says nothing about `status` (active vs draft) beyond what the enum already documents.

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 (clone) and resource (landing page / web page from a URL) and names the output artifact (a NEW Xmagnet landing page, with its form). It also enumerates the three source classes it handles (own pages, another account's live Xmagnet page, any public page), which distinguishes it from create_landing_page and clone_form without needing their schemas.

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 language: use when the user shares a page link and says clone / copy / duplicate / 'make a page like this'. It also defines the failure branch (if the link is not a landing page, tell the user plainly), so the agent knows both when to call it and what to do when it declines.

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

All xmagnet toolsInspect
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