Layero

Форма подбора отправлена

compose_landing_submit

Собрать лендинг по ответам из формы.

Это НЕ инструмент для модели: его вызывает сама форма через мост хоста.
Модель для того же зовёт `compose_landing`.

Сборка идёт той же функцией, что и после квиза, — результат не должен
зависеть от того, каким клиентом пользуется человек.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal`	No	Что человек должен сделать.	signup
`tone`	No	Тон.	friendly
`topic`	Yes	Тема страницы одной строкой.
`palette`	No	Палитра.	no_preference
`audience`	No	Для кого страница.
`integration`	No	Куда приходят заявки.	skip
`project_name`	No	Слаг проекта.
`design_system`	Yes	Выбранное оформление.

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description explains the invocation mechanism (form calls it via host bridge) which is useful behavioral context. However, the annotations only provide openWorldHint:true, so there's no read/write concern to clarify. The description doesn't disclose what happens on failure, return format, or side effects. For an output-promising tool with an output schema present, this is moderate but not overloaded.

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?

The description is compact — roughly four short paragraphs serving distinct purposes: purpose statement, usage exclusion, and parity guarantee. Each sentence earns its place. Slightly more verbose than strictly needed, but every clause adds meaningful guidance.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, an output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description handles the key gap: how this tool relates to compose_landing. It clarifies the bridge-invocation mechanism and parity behavior. The main omission is any guidance on what happens if inputs are incomplete or invalid, but with good schema coverage, this is a solid baseline.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% — every parameter has a description in the schema. The description itself doesn't add parameter-level context beyond noting they come from a form and the result should match post-quiz behavior. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't elevate beyond this.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool assembles a landing page from form answers. It differentiates from the sibling compose_landing by explicitly noting this tool is NOT for the model — it's called by the form via a host bridge, while the model should call compose_landing instead. This is a specific verb+resource with strong sibling differentiation.

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?

The description explicitly states when NOT to use this tool (it's not for the model) and names the alternative (compose_landing). It also clarifies that the assembly uses the same function as post-quiz, so results shouldn't depend on which client the person uses. This is excellent usage guidance with explicit exclusions and named alternatives.

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?