Skip to main content
Glama

post_website_build

WHOLE-SITE generator — up to 6 finished, consistent HTML pages in one call. POST a site name, shared branding (colors, logo, footer), and a pages[] array (each with page_name, headline, content sections, hero images); one seed styles every page identically and a shared nav linking all pages is built automatically. Returns ready-to-upload files plus nav.json. The multi-page version of /api/website/page. ($0.05 per call, paid via x402)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
logoNoAuto-generate mark: {query, colors, shape}
seedNoStyle seed — omit for random; returned so you can add pages later
pagesYes1-6 pages: [{page_name, headline, title, caption, tagline, hero_images, content, cta}]
colorsNo1-2 accents, hex or CSS names
footerNoFooter text (all pages)
logo_urlNoNav logo image URL
templateNohorizon, split, or editorial; omit to let the seed choose
site_nameYesBrand/site name (required)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedNo
pagesNo
nav_jsonNo
templateNo
page_countNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. Description adds context: generates HTML, returns ready-to-upload files and nav.json, costs $0.05 via x402. No contradiction with annotations.

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: first front-loads core purpose with bold emphasis, second packs key details without wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given complexity (8 params, output schema exists), description covers key behavior: multi-page generation, consistent styling, navigation, and pricing. Lacks explicit error handling or rate limits, but adequately complete for tool selection.

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%, but description adds valuable context: explains how seed styles all pages identically, describes pages array structure (headline, content sections, hero images), and notes that seed can be omitted for random.

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 states it as a 'WHOLE-SITE generator' generating up to 6 finished HTML pages, distinguishes from single-page sibling via 'multi-page version of /api/website/page', and lists key inputs and outputs.

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?

Explicitly identifies as the multi-page version of a single-page tool, implying use when multiple consistent pages are needed. Mentions constraints (up to 6 pages) and shared nav behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).