Visionaire Engine

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

page_origins

Audits all stylesheets on a page, revealing their URL, size, origin, and source-map status. Also detects the CMS platform, theme, child theme, page builder, and CSS optimizer used.

Instructions

Inventory of every stylesheet (URL, byte size, origin, source-map presence) plus platform detection — WordPress version, theme/child theme, page builder (Elementor/Divi), and CSS optimizer. Use before proposing edits to learn where the CSS actually lives, when a file:line points at a generated/minified bundle and you need the true source, or to answer 'is this WordPress/Elementor?' and 'which stylesheet owns this?'.

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": "page_origins"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only and safe. It lacks mention of permissions or side effects. For an inventory tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description effectively explains what the tool returns (stylesheet details and platform detection) and when to use it. It could be slightly more specific about the return format (e.g., list, object) but is otherwise complete.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly does not discuss params, earning the baseline of 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 clearly states it inventories stylesheets (URL, byte size, origin, source-map) and detects platform details (WordPress version, theme, page builder, optimizer). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'explain_styles' or 'style_diff'.

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 says 'Use before proposing edits' and gives three concrete scenarios: learning where CSS lives, finding true source for minified bundles, and answering platform/ownership questions. This provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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