Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

webEmbedding

by io.github.jongko54
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Embed Snippet

generate_embed_snippet
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate an iframe snippet for a known frameable and authorized URL. Does not verify frameability by itself.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "generate_embed_snippet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to embed. It must allow framing; check with inspect_url first.
titleNoAccessible title attribute for the iframe.
frameworkNoSnippet flavor: html (plain iframe) or nextjs (React component).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / framework / description
      Added value: +"Snippet flavor: html (plain iframe) or nextjs (React component)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Added value: +"Accessible title attribute for the iframe."
    • addedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Added value: +"URL to embed. It must allow framing; check with inspect_url first."
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful caveat that annotations cannot express: the tool does not verify frameability, so a bad URL will still produce a snippet. It does not mention whether output differs by framework beyond the schema's enum, but that is minor.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the operation and its input precondition, the second preempts the most likely misuse. Front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain the returned snippet, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining meaningful content — the frameability precondition — is stated. A small gap is that the verifying sibling is not named in the description for an agent that reads descriptions before schemas.

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 parameter (url, title, framework) is documented with its constraints and enum meaning in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact ('generate an iframe snippet') plus the input resource ('a known frameable and authorized URL'). The qualifier 'known frameable and authorized' implicitly separates it from inspect_url, which does the verifying, though the sibling is not named in the description itself.

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?

The precondition is clear: this is for URLs already known to be frameable and authorized, and the second sentence explicitly disclaims verification responsibility, telling the agent this is a post-verification step. The concrete alternative (inspect_url) is only named in the schema's url description, not in the tool description, so routing guidance is one hop removed.

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

All webEmbedding toolsInspect
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