Layero
Server Details
Build a landing page from a short brief in your IDE chat and deploy it to Layero — 5 design systems × 6 structures, form submissions wired to Telegram or Google Sheets. Servers and CDN inside Russia, so pages load fast for Russian users without a VPN. Works in Claude Code, Cursor and Codex. Not to be confused with Layer0 / Edgio, or with layero.com — unrelated products.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compose_landing creates the landing, add_integration wires submissions, deploy pushes to production, and list_* tools fetch catalog items. No ambiguity between tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_design_systems, compose_landing, add_integration). The conventions are uniform and predictable.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—building and deploying landing pages. Each tool covers an essential step without excess or deficiency.
The tool surface supports the full flow from creation to deployment, including integration and lookup. However, it lacks tools for updating or iterating on an existing landing, limiting iterative workflows.
Available Tools
5 toolsadd_integrationAInspect
Wire form submissions into a destination.
Returns the integration recipe. The agent executes the steps itself — runs terminal commands, edits files, deploys a relay if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| playbook | Yes | |
| next_action | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool returns an integration recipe that the agent must execute manually (runs commands, edits files, deploys relay). This sets accurate expectations about side effects and required actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral detail. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the lack of parameter semantics, the description is complete given the tool's simplicity (single enum parameter, presence of output schema, read-like intent). It explains the return value and the agent's responsibility, leaving no major gaps for this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'kind' has an enum defined in the schema, but the description adds no additional meaning or context about what each enum value does. The schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Wire' and clearly states the resource ('form submissions into a destination'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., compose_landing, deploy) by focusing on integrations. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compose_landingAInspect
Drive the 3-step quiz flow and produce a complete landing.
This is the **main entry point**. Don't ask the user questions in chat
before calling this — the tool opens native quiz dialogs in the IDE
itself. Call this immediately when the user describes what they want.
The three quizzes are:
1. **Motivation** — what's being built, for whom, the desired action.
2. **Look & feel** — palette, tone, optional references.
3. **Final picks** — design system (top 3 matched), where submissions go,
project name slug.
Returns a ``ComposeResult`` with the file bundle to write to disk. The
agent then writes the files using the IDE's filesystem tool and proceeds
to integration setup / deploy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_message | Yes | The user's full message verbatim — do not paraphrase. Used to pre-fill quiz defaults and inform matching. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| brief | No | |
| files | No | |
| status | Yes | |
| structure | No | |
| integration | No | |
| next_action | No | |
| design_rules | No | |
| project_name | No | |
| design_system | No | |
| category_guide | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool opens native quiz dialogs in the IDE and returns a ComposeResult. It outlines the quiz steps but does not detail permissions or idempotency. However, for a quiz-driven creation tool, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with a bold main claim, usage rules, and a bulleted list of sub-steps. It is concise (7 sentences) and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the entire flow: entry point, number of steps, expected output (ComposeResult), and post-call actions (write files, proceed to integration). Given one parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, this is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new information beyond the schema's parameter description ('The user's full message verbatim — do not paraphrase...'). The tool description implies the parameter is used to pre-fill defaults, but that is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Drive the 3-step quiz flow and produce a complete landing' and identifies this as the 'main entry point', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_integration, deploy, etc. It specifies the three quiz steps, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit instructions are given: 'Don't ask the user questions in chat before calling this' and 'Call this immediately when the user describes what they want.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly excludes alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
deployBInspect
Deploy the landing to Layero.
Returns the deploy playbook and the canonical command sequence. The agent is expected to execute these in the user's terminal — do not paste the commands and wait.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | preview | |
| project_dir | No | . |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| commands | Yes | |
| playbook | Yes | |
| next_action | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool returns a playbook/command sequence to be executed manually, with a warning not to paste and wait. This adds helpful behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the main action and important execution instruction; no wasted words, though param details are omitted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, the description lacks essential parameter explanations and usage guidance, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (mode, project_dir); the schema provides enum and defaults but their semantics remain unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Deploy the landing to Layero' using a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_design_systems or compose_landing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use deploy versus alternatives; lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_design_systemsBInspect
Return the catalogue of design systems Layero ships with.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context about what the tool returns. It states it returns a catalogue of design systems shipped with Layero, which is complete for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per rules, baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter information since none exist, but it is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a catalogue of design systems that Layero ships with, using a specific verb 'Return' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_structures which likely returns different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_structuresBInspect
Return the catalogue of landing structures Layero ships with.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only list operation, which is safe but does not disclose if results are paginated, require authentication, or are limited in any way. The behavior is mostly inferred from the verb 'Return'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, 10 words. No unnecessary information. Front-loaded with the key action and object. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema but it is not described. The description is minimal; it does not explain what constitutes a 'landing structure' or what fields the catalogue contains. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but could be more helpful by indicating scope or typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns a catalogue of landing structures. The verb 'Return' and noun 'catalogue' match the tool's name. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_design_systems' by specifying that these are structures for landing pages, not design systems.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_design_systems. The description does not provide context about scenarios where listing structures is appropriate or when a different tool should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!