Skip to main content
Glama

DreamAgent Cloud

by cloud.dreamagent.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Redesign UI from an image

dreamagent_design_mode

WRITE ACTION — redesign a website project's UI to match a design image. Website projects only.

The user provides an image (screenshot, mockup, AI-generated design) and instructions. You generate the image (e.g. DALL-E), encode it as base64, and send it here. DreamAgent's AI will read the image and redesign the project's frontend to match.

CONFIRM BEFORE CALLING — show the user:

  1. The project being redesigned

  2. The design instructions Then call only with confirm=true after they agree.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNomust be true to execute.
project_idYesthe website project to redesign.
image_base64Yesbase64-encoded design reference image (PNG/JPG/WEBP). Send the actual image bytes verbatim — the image IS the spec.
instructionsYeskeep this SHORT — e.g. "Match this design image exactly." The image carries the design; do NOT write a long textual design spec duplicating what is visible in the image. Only add brief must-have requirements the image cannot show (e.g. "keep all existing pages and functionality", "Product Hunt view only").

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / image_base64 / description
      Previous value: -"base64-encoded design reference image (PNG/JPG)."New value: +"base64-encoded design reference image (PNG/JPG/WEBP).\nSend the actual image bytes verbatim — the image IS the spec."
    • changedInput schema / properties / instructions / description
      Previous value: -"what to change (e.g. \"match this dark theme with purple accents\",\n          \"make the hero section look like this\", \"use this layout\")."New value: +"keep this SHORT — e.g. \"Match this design image exactly.\"\nThe image carries the design; do NOT write a long textual design\nspec duplicating what is visible in the image. Only add brief\nmust-have requirements the image cannot show (e.g. \"keep all\nexisting pages and functionality\", \"Product Hunt view only\")."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a WRITE ACTION, it mutates the frontend, and it requires confirm=true before execution. It stops short of disclosing what happens to existing UI/pages that the redesign replaces, which would be valuable given the mutating nature.

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-loads 'WRITE ACTION' so the operation type is immediately visible, then scopes the resource and lays out the workflow and confirmation steps in a scannable structure. Every sentence carries actionable information with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the operation type, scope, workflow, and confirmation gate, giving an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly for this multi-parameter, open-world write tool.

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 still adds value by explaining the confirm workflow (show project + instructions, then call with confirm=true) and reinforcing that the image itself is the spec. This meaningfully clarifies how to set confirm and how to treat image_base64 vs instructions beyond the schema text.

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 (redesign) and resource (a website project's UI/frontend) with a clear scope constraint ('Website projects only'). It clearly distinguishes itself from file-editing siblings like dreamagent_edit_file and dreamagent_write_file by centering on image-driven UI redesign.

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?

Gives a clear workflow context (user supplies image + instructions, agent generates and base64-encodes it) and an explicit scope exclusion ('Website projects only'), plus a mandatory confirm-before-calling procedure. It does not, however, explicitly compare itself to alternative tools an agent might reach for, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All DreamAgent Cloud toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources