Create Web Page

Start Landing Page Intake

page.intake.start

Read-onlyIdempotent

RECOMMENDED first step for building a page. Returns the few questions worth asking (business name, primary visitor action, key content, optional source link) so you can then call page.create_from_brief. This is the simplest, most reliable path — prefer it. (page.onboarding.* offers extra category/layout/palette pickers but is a stateless planning helper, not required.) Call once per creation request; skip if the user already gave you a source URL. Does not create a page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`locale`	No	Preferred content locale if obvious from the conversation.
`sourceUrl`	No	Public HTTP/HTTPS source URL provided by the user, such as a business website or link-in-bio page. Protected platforms (social networks, maps, paywalls) require client-side browsing or pasted details instead.
`primaryGoal`	No	The main visitor action if known, such as book, call, WhatsApp, buy, or leave a lead.
`businessName`	No	Only include if the user already provided the business or project name.
`businessType`	No	Business category inferred from the user's words, such as hamburger restaurant or dental clinic.
`sourceHandle`	No	Public social handle provided by the user.
`originalRequest`	No	The user's original page-creation request, copied verbatim when available.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`mode`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`actions`	Yes
`questions`	Yes
`canCreateNow`	Yes
`promptToUser`	Yes
`missingFields`	Yes
`sourceGuidance`	Yes
`recommendedNextTool`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns questions, does not create a page, and has a skip condition. No contradiction with annotations, and the added details are meaningful beyond the structured hints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key purpose ('RECOMMENDED first step'). Each sentence serves a distinct role: purpose, follow-up action, preference, alternative context, and call constraint. No redundant words.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, usage conditions, alternatives, and non-effects, making it fully adequate for a 7-parameter tool. It also mentions limitations (protected platforms) implicitly via schema and usage guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, though it reinforces the 'sourceUrl' skip condition. No gaps to compensate for.

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 identifies the tool as the recommended first step for building a page, distinct from siblings by naming page.create_from_brief as the follow-up and page.onboarding.* as an optional alternative. It states a specific verb and resource with explicit scope.

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: 'RECOMMENDED first step', 'prefer it', and 'Call once per creation request; skip if the user already gave you a source URL.' It also distinguishes from alternatives by noting page.onboarding.* is not required.

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

All Create Web Page 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?