Atelier Studio Website Tools

Plan the pages of an architecture or interior design studio website

plan_studio_website_pages

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the pages an architecture or interior design studio website needs, in the order a client meets them, with what goes on each page, plus the section-by-section structure of a project page. Use when an architect, interior designer or their web designer asks what pages a studio website should have, how to structure a portfolio, or what a project page should include.

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": "plan_studio_website_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`journal`	No	Whether the studio will write about its work a few times a year. Default false.
`studio_type`	No	What the studio designs: buildings (architecture), interiors, or both. Default both.
`project_count`	No	How many projects the studio wants to show on the site. Default 6.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context that the annotations do not: the result is an ordered page plan plus the section-by-section breakdown of a project page, which tells the agent what kind of artifact comes back in the absence of an output schema.

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 sentences, purpose first and usage second, with no filler. The opening sentence is dense but every clause (ordering by client journey, per-page content, project page structure) earns its place by describing the deliverable.

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?

For a three-optional-parameter, read-only planning tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool produces and when to invoke it. The only meaningful gap is the absent relationship to score_studio_website, which an agent might otherwise conflate with this planning tool.

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%, and each of the three optional parameters documents its meaning and default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about how journal, studio_type or project_count shape the plan, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Lists the pages an architecture or interior design studio website needs') and details the shape of the output: page order, per-page content, and project-page sections. It is clear enough to distinguish from a scoring tool, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling score_studio_website, leaving that differentiation implicit.

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?

It gives explicit trigger scenarios: an architect, interior designer or web designer asking what pages a studio site should have, how to structure a portfolio, or what a project page should include. What is missing is any when-not guidance or a pointer to score_studio_website for evaluating an existing site.

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

All Atelier Studio Website Tools 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?