Skip to main content
Glama

set_landing_page_section

Set a field within a landing page section using dot-path notation, or replace the entire section with new content. Each call creates a new draft version for the page.

Instructions

Set one field on a landing page section (dot-paths in field supported, e.g. 'plans.0.ctaUrl'), or replace a whole section with replaceSection=true. Pass the bare content-section key (e.g. 'hero', 'features', 'pricing') — the server maps it into the page's content tree. Top-level roots like slotMap, config, navigation, siteMetadata are also accepted as-is. Each call creates a new draft version — for many related changes across a page, prefer vibe_edit_landing_page instead. Example: section='hero', field='title', value='New headline'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName for the new version
slugYesLanding page slug
fieldNoDot-path field within the section to set, e.g. 'title' or 'plans.0.ctaUrl'. Required unless replaceSection=true.
valueYesNew value for the field (or the whole section when replaceSection=true). May be any JSON type — string, number, boolean, null, array, or object — sent verbatim, not stringified.
sectionYesBare section key. For content sections use e.g. hero, features, pricing, cta, faq — the server maps these into the page's content tree. Top-level roots like slotMap, config, navigation, siteMetadata are also accepted.
descriptionNoDescription for the new version
replaceSectionNoReplace the entire section with `value` instead of setting one field
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: 'Each call creates a new draft version,' and explains the server-side mapping of section keys. It doesn't mention error handling or side effects beyond versioning, but for a content edit tool this is adequate. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core action, then efficiently explains key concepts and an example. Every sentence contributes useful information—no filler or repetition of schema details. At ~90 words it is appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The tool handles 7 parameters with complex semantics (dot-paths, replaceSection, section mapping), and the description covers these well, including versioning implications and tool selection guidance. It doesn't describe the return value or failure modes, but with no output schema and rich input descriptions, the existing coverage is strong. A score of 4 reflects the small gaps while acknowledging overall completeness.

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. The description enriches semantics by explaining the 'bare content-section key' concept, dot-path syntax with an example, top-level root acceptance, and the version-creation side effect. This goes beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions provide, earning a 4.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set one field on a landing page section', and clearly distinguishes the two modes of operation (single field via dot-path or whole section via replaceSection). It also differentiates from siblings by pointing to vibe_edit_landing_page for multi-change edits, and the section-key mapping details set it apart from other landing page tools.

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 states when to prefer an alternative: 'for many related changes across a page, prefer vibe_edit_landing_page instead.' It also provides contextual guidance on acceptable inputs (bare content-section keys, top-level roots) and example usage, making the tool's application clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bitsandtea/postking-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server