Skip to main content
Glama

Postclick by PPC.io: Landing Page CRO

Show the page designs

get_concepts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Free. Returns every concept rendered for an audit, each with its image URLs and a link to view it full size, and a runs.active count of how many are still rendering. A pack takes 3 to 8 minutes. While runs.active is above zero, call it with wait set to 300: it holds the connection open and comes back the instant a design lands, the stage moves, or the pack finishes, instead of returning the same half-empty list a dozen times in a row. A design landing is the thing worth interrupting for, and a wait gets it to the user within seconds of it existing. If a call comes back with nothing new, say nothing and call again — repeating a stage you already reported is worse than silence. A partial set is non-terminal: more images are still coming, so it is not the finished set to choose from. Some concepts may be flagged recommended, and often none is. The designs come back as pictures in the reply, not just links: without a concept_id it returns the opening screen of each so they can be compared, and with one it returns that single design as every band in page order, which is the whole page. Any figures, ratings or testimonials drawn into them are placeholders showing where real proof belongs, never the user's own data. Pick a concept_id to build. If the user wants to SEND a design to anyone, use share_page with that concept_id: it gives back one public no-login page of the whole design. Never hand over an app or dashboard link for that, the recipient hits a login wall.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
waitNoSeconds to wait for a material change. Use 25 for broad client compatibility; longer waits are available for hosts that support them. A timeout preserves the run; resume by ID instead of starting again.
audit_idYes
concept_idNoOptional. Given one, returns that design as its full stack of bands in page order instead of one opening screen per design.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial operational context beyond them: it is free, packs take 3-8 minutes, long-polling holds the connection and returns on a material change, and a partial set is non-terminal. It also discloses that figures/ratings/testimonials are placeholders, not real data. It stops short of describing pagination or exact response shape, but the added context is rich.

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?

Dense but almost every sentence carries actionable content (polling etiquette, placeholder caveat, sibling routing). The purpose is slightly deferred behind the leading 'Free.' and the length could be trimmed, but there is little true waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return-value burden: it explains the image/picture rendering, the link, the runs.active progress signal, and the recommended flag. Combined with the polling and share_page guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Adds meaning beyond the 67%-covered schema: the strategic recommendation to set wait=300 while rendering is active and why, and the behavioral difference of concept_id (opening screen per design vs. full stack of bands in page order). audit_id is undocumented but self-evident from the required-parameter name.

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 ('Returns every concept rendered for an audit') and enumerates what each concept carries (image URLs, full-size link, runs.active count). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from generate_concepts (generation) and share_page (sending), so an agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicit conditional routing: use wait=300 while runs.active > 0, omit concept_id to compare opening screens, pass concept_id to build a single design, and use share_page instead when the user wants to SEND a design. It also names when to stay silent on empty polls, which is real when-to-use guidance.

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