UiChemy AI Website Creator

uichemy_add_designed_section

Adds the section you designed with uichemy_design_section to a page of the user's project. The file is checked against the Designer's contract (refused with the reasons to fix if it fails), its photo: descriptions get real photos, and every piece of copy becomes an editable slot (change words later with uichemy_set_text; the user can also edit it on the canvas). It is saved as an AI section, like one the editor's Designer generates, and shows in the open editor.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "templateId": "<templateId>",
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "uichemy_add_designed_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	The complete section .jsx file.
`kind`	Yes	Section kind: hero, features, testimonials, pricing-table, cta, faq, team, gallery…
`pageName`	No	Defaults to Home.
`position`	No	1-based place, as uichemy_design_section said.
`projectId`	Yes
`templateId`	Yes	The id uichemy_design_section gave.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / name

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "What it is called on the canvas. Defaults to the kind.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the file is validated against a Designer contract and refused with fix reasons, photo: descriptions are resolved to real images, copy becomes editable slots, and the result is saved as an AI section visible in the open editor. That is exactly the mutation and side-effect disclosure an agent needs and the annotations only crudely imply.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the pipeline effects; every clause carries real information (validation, images, editable text, where it lands). Slightly overstuffed with parenthetical asides, which costs a point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers input contract, failure behavior, enrichment, editability path (uichemy_set_text / canvas), and result visibility — enough for a 4-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. What is missing is the prerequisite that uichemy_design_section must have succeeded and a note on whether the call is idempotent or creates duplicates.

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 83%, so parameter meaning is largely carried by the schema itself ('position ... as uichemy_design_section said', 'the id uichemy_design_section gave'). The description adds no syntax or format detail for projectId, pageName, or code beyond what is already structured, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Adds the section ... to a page of the user's project') and ties the input to its producer sibling uichemy_design_section. This distinguishes it from uichemy_add_section (template-based) and uichemy_update_designed_section without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Clear sequencing context: it is the step that follows uichemy_design_section, and 'kind'/'templateId' are described as coming from that call. It does not explicitly exclude the alternatives (uichemy_add_section, uichemy_insert_saved_section, uichemy_save_section), so the routing story is good but not fully closed.

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

All UiChemy AI Website Creator tools Inspect

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

Need Help?