headlo-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_module

Add a module to a Headlo page slot by specifying page, slot, and template IDs. Optionally set collection and template options for custom configuration.

Instructions

Add a module to a page slot

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>",
      "slot_id": "<slot_id>",
      "template_id": "<template_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_id`	Yes
`slot_id`	Yes
`template_id`	Yes
`collection_id`	No
`template_options`	No
`collection_record_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a mutating operation, but no side effects, prerequisites, or behavior regarding existing modules in the slot are disclosed. This is insufficient for a creation tool with complex parameters.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is terse and front-loaded, which is efficient, but it omits essential context needed for a tool with six parameters. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Given moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is substantially incomplete. It lacks information about return values, prerequisites, and parameter relationships, making it only minimally useful.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the six parameters. It does not explain the roles of template_id, collection_id, template_options, or collection_record_id, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from parameter names.

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 'Add a module to a page slot' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_page_modules, get_module, or delete_module. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_module or create_page. There are no contextual cues, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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