Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sitecore Community MCP

Sitecore Community MCP

by gherisalim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

presentation-reset-layout

Destructive

Reset a Sitecore item's layout by providing its ID or path, language, and choosing final layout or shared layout.

Instructions

Resets the layout of an item.

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": "presentation-reset-layout"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe ID of the item to reset the layout for. Supply this or path.
pathNoThe path of the item to reset the layout for. Supply this or id.
languageNoSpecifies the item language to reset layout for.
finalLayoutNoSpecifies layout to be reset. If 'true', the final layout is reset, otherwise - shared layout.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.3

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what a reset destroys, whether the prior layout is recoverable, or how shared vs final layout anchoring behaves.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and the verb front-loaded. It is efficient, though it verges on under-specification rather than tight 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?

For a destructive mutation with four parameters and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It omits what happens to the existing layout, whether a publish is required, and any impact on placeholders/renderings, leaving an agent under-informed despite the destructive annotation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id/path/language/finalLayout, including the shared-vs-final distinction. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a verb (resets) and resource (layout of an item), which is better than a bare tautology. However, 'reset' is ambiguous about what the layout reverts to, and it does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings like presentation-merge-layout, presentation-set-layout, or presentation-get-layout.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this versus set-layout or merge-layout, nor any precondition. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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