Skip to main content
Glama

add-page

Destructive

Creates a new Concrete CMS page with a specified page type, parent, template, and optional attributes for content, metadata, and navigation settings.

Instructions

Adds a page object.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "add-page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
typeNoThe handle of the page type you want to apply to this page.
parentNo
templateNoThe handle of the page template you want to apply to this page.
attributesNo
descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0-alpha.1

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about what happens on failure, whether name uniqueness matters, what the parent relationship implies, or what is returned. For a creation tool with a large nested attribute payload, that is a significant disclosure gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. There is no structure, no front-loaded detail about required inputs, and nothing for the agent to act on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool takes 6 top-level parameters plus a 20-field nested attributes object and has no output schema, yet the description says nothing about required fields, attribute semantics, or return value. It is far too thin for the complexity of this operation.

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 only 33% and the description contributes zero parameter meaning, so the low-coverage compensation the rubric asks for is absent. However, the schema itself does carry descriptive titles and a nested attributes object with self-explanatory field titles (meta_title, exclude_nav, tags), which keeps this above the floor.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Adds a page object" essentially restates the tool name (add-page) with no added specificity: it does not say what a page object contains, whether content is required, or how this differs from sibling mutators like add-file or add-user. An agent learns only the generic verb 'create page' and nothing about scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a parent page or page type handle), and no routing to alternatives such as update-page-by-id or add-block-to-page-area. The agent must infer the call site entirely from the tool name.

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