Layero

Собрать лендинг по идее

compose_landing

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that the tool opens native quiz dialogs in the IDE (not chat), which is a critical behavioral trait not captured by the openWorldHint annotation. It explains the full user-visible flow (three quiz categories) and what the tool returns (ComposeResult file bundle) and what should happen next. The description carries the behavioral burden well beyond the single annotation.

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?

Well-structured with bold section headers and a bullet list of the three quiz steps, making it scannable. Every sentence earns its place: the entry-point callout, the not-in-chat directive, the three quiz categories, and the return value with next steps. No fluff.

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?

For a moderately complex tool (3-step quiz, 1 param, output schema present), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to call it, what the user experiences, what it returns, and the follow-up workflow. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the description fills the behavioral narrative completely.

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 single parameter user_message is already documented ('The user's full message verbatim — do not paraphrase'). The description adds meaning by explaining how the message is used ('pre-fill quiz defaults and inform matching'), though it doesn't specify what happens with low-information messages. The description adds context beyond the schema's 'do not paraphrase' instruction.

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?

Highly specific: "Drive the 3-step quiz flow and produce a complete landing" names the exact verb (drive quiz flow, produce landing), the resource (landing), and the mechanism (3-step quiz). It explicitly distinguishes itself as the 'main entry point' versus the sibling compose_landing_submit, which handles submission. Clear and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Call this immediately when the user describes what they want' and 'Don't ask the user questions in chat before calling this' — a critical behavioral directive. It also distinguishes the flow from the submit tool and describes the follow-up (write files with IDE filesystem tool, then integration). Clear guidance on when and how to invoke.

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

All Layero tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are distinct, but there's real confusion risk between the deploy-related set (cancel_deploy, retry_deploy, deploy_logs, diagnose_deploy) and the site-inspection set (site_status, read_site, site_issues, site_screenshot) where purposes overlap. compose_landing vs compose_landing_submit are differentiated mostly by an obscure note rather than naming. Several tools address similar concepts (landing composition, publishing, deploy) making agent misselection plausible.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use a clean verb_noun pattern (list_deploys, connect_domain, check_domain, publish_landing, read_site, rollback). However, conventions are mixed: some use compose/x/check/y (check_copy, check_domain, check_performance) while others use site_x (site_status, site_analytics, site_issues, site_screenshot) with inconsistent ordering. Descriptions mix English and Russian heavily, though that's content not naming.

Tool Count4/5

27 tools is a large but arguably justified surface for a full site-building/deploying/monitoring platform spanning composition, domain management, deploys, performance, analytics, and environment configuration. It sits slightly above what feels tight, but each tool has a defined role in the overall workflow.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full landing lifecycle: compose, publish, deploy, monitor, rollback, diagnose, and connect external resources (domain, analytics, integrations). Minor gaps: no explicit tool for site deletion/teardown, only read_site for editing with refactor_site being narrow, and no way to update an existing landing's text beyond refactor. Still, core CRUD and operational flows are covered.

Resources

Need Help?