Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sitecore Community MCP

Sitecore Community MCP

by gherisalim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

presentation-add-placeholder-setting

Add a placeholder setting to a Sitecore item by ID or path, specifying the setting by ID or path and choosing final or shared layout.

Instructions

Adds a placeholder setting to an item.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "presentation-add-placeholder-setting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe ID of the item to add the placeholder setting to. Supply this or path.
keyYesThe key of the placeholder setting to add.
pathNoThe path of the item to add the placeholder setting to. Supply this or id.
databaseNoThe context database. Sent when addressing the item or the placeholder setting by ID -- a path carries its own database prefix (e.g. master:/sitecore/content/Home).master
languageNoThe language version of the item to add the placeholder setting to.
finalLayoutNoSpecifies layout to add the rendering placeholder setting to. If 'true', the final layout is used, otherwise - shared layout.
placeholderSettingIdNoThe ID of the placeholder setting to add. Supply this or placeholderSettingPath.
placeholderSettingPathNoThe path of the placeholder setting to add. Supply this or placeholderSettingId.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds nothing beyond the name: no detail on overwrite behavior if the setting already exists, idempotency, required item state, or permissions. For a mutation with no output schema, the description should carry more of that burden.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 8 parameters, mutually exclusive addressing options, a layout-selection flag, a mutation operation, and no output schema, the description does not supply enough for confident invocation. The agent must fall back entirely on schema text and has no notion of failure modes or post-conditions.

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%, so the schema already explains the id/path, placeholderSettingId/placeholderSettingPath alternatives, database default and finalLayout semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline 3 when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('adds a placeholder setting') to a specific target ('an item'), so the agent knows what operation is performed. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from closely related siblings such as presentation-add-rendering, presentation-set-rendering-parameter, or presentation-remove-placeholder-setting, leaving the agent to infer which presentation mutation applies.

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 prerequisites (e.g. that the item must have a layout), and no mention of alternatives or when NOT to use it. The agent gets no routing help between this and the other presentation-* mutation tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools