layouts.listList supported page layouts. v1 ships link_in_bio only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a key behavioral constraint: only link_in_bio is available in v1, which sets clear expectations for the result set.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence provides the core purpose, and the second adds a meaningful version-specific detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, this description is fully sufficient. It covers what the tool does and its current limitation, requiring no further elaboration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per baseline rules for no-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; no parameter explanations are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('supported page layouts'), and adds valuable version context ('v1 ships link_in_bio only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like presets.list and account.pages.list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied—call this when you need to know available page layouts—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as presets.list, or how it fits into page creation workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions (blocks, accounts, pages), but page.create and page.create_from_brief both create pages, and page.intake.start vs page.onboarding.start/update are overlapping planning helpers. The detailed descriptions help disambiguate, though an agent might still pause on choosing between them.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase dot-separated resource.action pattern (e.g., block.add, page.publish, account.whoami). Nested resources like page.header.update and page.onboarding.update extend the same rule without mixing conventions.
At 23 tools, the count sits in the borderline 16-25 range. Many tools are specific and justified, but the planning helpers (intake/onboarding) and multiple page creation variants add bulk that could be consolidated.
The server covers create, read, update, block management, and publish/unpublish, but misses a page.delete operation, leaving a lifecycle dead-end. Account tools are also minimal, limited to reading/listing without management capabilities.