Skip to main content
Glama

Website: Refresh photos

website_refresh_photos
Destructive

Replace the stock photos of an existing site — all of them, or one block's — with NEW on-topic ones; the current photos are excluded, so the result is always different. 'hint' says what the photos should show, as English search words ('server room', 'network cables', 'barista pouring coffee'). Photos the owner uploaded are never replaced unless 'block' names that block and include_owner_photos is true. Goes live at once. Runs propose→confirm. CONFIRMATION: this tool is PROPOSED, never performed directly. You get status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and a plan_token, and the write happens only after confirm_action.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "website_refresh_photos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNoWhat the new photos should show, in English search words.
blockNoWhich block: its id from website_publish_status, its type (hero, gallery, services, testimonials, team, contacts, footer…) or the owner's word for it (шапка, галерея, відгуки, послуги).
websiteNoSite id, name or subdomain. Optional when the workspace has one site.
include_owner_photosNoOnly with 'block': also replace the owner's own photo there (they asked).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: current photos are excluded so results always differ, owner photos are protected by default, changes go live immediately, and the call is only a proposal returning status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and plan_token. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive write.

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?

The destructive behavior and photo-replacement scope are front-loaded, and the confirmation block is clearly labeled. It is dense but largely earns its length, with only mild repetition between the 'hint' explanation in prose and the schema description.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the proposal response shape (status, action_id, plan_token) and the two-step propose→confirm flow. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and safely.

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, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: the interaction between 'block' and include_owner_photos (both required to touch owner photos) and the constraint that hint is English search words with concrete examples. It does not add much on 'website' beyond the schema, keeping it short of a 5.

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 and resource ('Replace the stock photos of an existing site') plus the two scopes (all photos or one block's) and the outcome (always different from current). This clearly separates it from siblings like website_set_photo, which sets a specific photo rather than regenerating a set.

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 conditions: use 'hint' for what the new photos should show, use 'block' to target one block, and owner-uploaded photos are only touched when block is named and include_owner_photos is true. It also routes the agent to confirm_action for the actual write, so the when/when-not picture is complete.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources