Skip to main content
Glama

Standout

by io.standoutmcp

get_design_direction

Get a complete, distinctive, reference-backed art direction for a website: palette with exact hex roles, type pairing, layout DNA, hero spec, component treatments, imagery rules, matched motion recipes, and public-product reference evidence. Use FIRST, before building, so the site has a coherent direction instead of defaults. The catalog holds 14 directions: 9 with light base palettes and 5 dark — pass tone to constrain. If you only know the business name, call it anyway: the response will give you a few quick questions to ask the user, then call again with their answers as vibe/audience. REDESIGNS: if the business has an existing website, pass its URL as current_site_url — Standout fetches it server-side and returns a content inventory (services, prices, hours, contacts) plus a redesign protocol, so no questions are needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toneNoBase palette tone. Pass when the client asks for a light or dark site; matching stays inside that pool (9 light / 5 dark directions)
vibeNoDesired feel, e.g. premium, playful, technical, warm
audienceNoWho the site must convince
boldnessNoHow adventurous the signature concept should be: safe (conservative/trust-first businesses like clinics, accountants, law firms), elevated (default), bold, or experimental. A 'safe' request never receives a bold concept. Bold/experimental dials can unlock signature SET PIECES: finished interactive hero objects (drag-to-compare reveal, live pricing calculator, product console, scroll-driven process timeline) delivered as complete code by get_section_code.
businessNoWhat the business is, e.g. 'dive shop in Fiji running charters'. If omitted, the response returns a few quick intake questions to ask the user instead of erroring.
industryNoIndustry, e.g. restaurant, law firm, saas, gym
current_site_urlNoThe business's EXISTING website URL, for redesigns. Standout fetches it and returns the content to preserve + the redesign protocol

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the catalog size (14 directions, 9 light/5 dark), the behavior when business is omitted (returns intake questions), and the server-side fetching for redesigns. Edge cases are explicitly covered, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and deliverables, then flows through usage, fallback, and redesign specifics. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy, and the structure is easy to parse despite the density.

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?

The description covers the main success path, the minimal-info fallback, and the redesign workflow, all within a complex multi-parameter tool. It does not have an output schema, but it lists the response contents explicitly, providing enough detail for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: tone is tied to catalog counts, business omission triggers intake questions, and current_site_url triggers server-side fetch with content inventory. This enrichment lifts the score above baseline, though not all params get extra explanation.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets a complete, distinctive, reference-backed art direction for a website, enumerating specific deliverables like palette, type pairing, layout DNA, and more. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual components (hero, motion, section code), making its role unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use FIRST, before building, and provides clear guidance for minimal-information scenarios (call anyway, ask questions) and redesigns (pass current_site_url). While it doesn't name alternative tools, it establishes precedence and gives concrete context for when to call it.

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

All Standout toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: build_from_reference and build_from_reference_v2 serve nearly the same purpose, make_it_standout and polish_and_prove overlap heavily, and get_design_direction, synthesize_direction_from_references, and build_from_reference_v2 all produce design directions. The long descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_design_direction, search_references, watch_site). Minor deviations like client_report, make_it_standout, and polish_and_prove are acceptable but slightly break the pattern.

Tool Count2/5

30 tools is too many for a design toolkit, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. Many 'get' tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_hero_concept, get_motion_recipes, get_asset_pack could be one tool). The count feels bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full design/build/critique/report/watch lifecycle well, from direction and sections to client reports and site monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit 'update' or 'delete' for references), but these are not critical to the core workflow.

Resources