Skip to main content
Glama
ng-galien

Maket

by ng-galien
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

maket_html

Build and refine HTML pages in Maket: replace the full page skeleton, patch elements by data-id, fetch current markup, and run layout checks to catch overflow, clipping, and overlaps before export.

Instructions

When to use: read and write page HTML. Pick set for the initial skeleton, patch for iterative edits, get to read, check to measure overflow without writing.

Every visible element MUST have a data-id. Use flex/grid with mm units. When a charte is loaded, prefer var(--charte-*) tokens. The compliance check is narrow: it rejects (1) hardcoded colour literals that duplicate an existing charte token value (e.g. #2563EB when primary=#2563EB), (2) any hardcoded font-family when the charte defines fonts, (3) any hardcoded box-shadow when the charte defines shadows. Fresh colours that don't duplicate a token pass untouched. Layout override: data-maket-layout="ignore" excludes exactly one marked non-interactive leaf block from overflow, overlap, clipping, and margin checks. The block must have no child elements or text; controls, links, data-maket-bind and focusable/ARIA elements are ineligible. Reserve it for intentional non-content decoration after visual review. Add it only with maket_html action=patch using attr on an existing data-id; the enabling op must be the only op in that patch request. Set, insert, replace, and content HTML cannot introduce it. For a state-backed document, Mustache is display-only. The document must author editable controls and all their CSS explicitly: data-maket-bind supports for booleans, for strings, for string enums, and for the single-value editor. Use state.foo at the root and relative foo inside state sections; never persist data-maket-path or other runtime attributes. set — REPLACE the full page HTML. Rejects the whole payload on any violation. Requires context_token when the doc has a charte. patch — apply ops by data-id: style/content/attr/insert/replace/remove/clone/moveTo. Violating ops roll back individually, the rest still apply. get — return current HTML; pass id= for a single element, format=text to strip tags. check — measure layout against the canvas + declared canvas.margins; no side effects. Returns a Markdown measurement report with physical canvas and content extents, root geometry, problematic addressable blocks, parent/canvas excess per side, clipping, and overlap pairs. Status: ✓ OK, ⚠ tight (block crosses a declared margin band — tighten or move into the safe zone before shipping), ⛔ overflow (block escapes the canvas, not shippable; pairwise overlaps between [data-id] blocks are reported under this same status), or ⛔ unchecked when headless validation could not run. On tight/overflow, the next: block points to a snapshot + targeted patch; unchecked is diagnostic-only to avoid blind retry loops.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoFor get: data-id of a single element to return; omit to fetch the whole page.
docYesDocument name (always required).
opsNoFor patch: list of surgical ops by data-id. Each op has `id` plus one of: style (object), content (string), attr (object), insert (html) + optional position, replace (outerHTML), remove (true), clone (newId), moveTo (targetId) + optional position. To exclude one intentional non-interactive leaf decoration with no child elements or text from layout validation, patch that existing element with attr: {"data-maket-layout":"ignore"}; controls, links, data-maket-bind and focusable/ARIA elements are ineligible. This override is rejected in set/insert/replace/content HTML, and its enabling op must be the only op in the patch request.
htmlNoFor set: full page HTML. Every visible element MUST carry a data-id. Use flex/grid with mm units; images use relative filenames (src="photo.jpg"); colours/fonts come from var(--charte-*). Example: <div data-id="page" style="width:210mm;height:297mm;display:flex;flex-direction:column;padding:15mm"><h1 data-id="title">Hello</h1></div>.
pageYesPage number, 1-based (always required).
actionYesOperation to run. See the tool description for the action table.
formatNoFor get: 'html' (default, full markup) or 'text' (tags stripped).
context_tokenNoFor set: charte context token from maket_charte view. REQUIRED when the document has a charte — proof the brand guidelines were read first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / ops / description
      Previous value: -"For patch: list of surgical ops by data-id. Each op has `id` plus one of: style (object), content (string), attr (object), insert (html) + optional position, replace (outerHTML), remove (true), clone (newId), moveTo (targetId) + optional position."New value: +"For patch: list of surgical ops by data-id. Each op has `id` plus one of: style (object), content (string), attr (object), insert (html) + optional position, replace (outerHTML), remove (true), clone (newId), moveTo (targetId) + optional position. To exclude one intentional non-interactive leaf decoration with no child elements or text from layout validation, patch that existing element with attr: {\"data-maket-layout\":\"ignore\"}; controls, links, data-maket-bind and focusable/ARIA elements are ineligible. This override is rejected in set/insert/replace/content HTML, and its enabling op must be the only op in the patch request."
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: set rejects the whole payload on violation, patch rolls back individual ops, get returns HTML/text, and check is side-effect-free with detailed status semantics. It also discloses compliance rules, charte token requirements, and the narrow, deterministic rejection criteria.

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?

The description is front-loaded with 'When to use' and uses a clear action-based structure that is easy to navigate. It is lengthy, but most content earns its place for a complex tool; the slight redundancy with the detailed ops schema description for data-maket-layout prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a complex tool with four actions and no output schema, yet the description explains not only invocation but also return types, statuses, side effects, rollback behavior, and prerequisite context. It covers the compliance model, Mustache constraints, and per-action behavior thoroughly enough for an agent to operate without external documentation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters, but the description adds substantial operational meaning: action-specific payload requirements, rollback behavior, context_token necessity, get filters, and the data-maket-layout override restrictions. This goes well beyond the bare schema definitions and helps the agent invoke parameters correctly.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'read and write page HTML'. It further enumerates the four sub-operations (set, patch, get, check) with distinct purposes, so an agent can distinguish them without guessing. This is specific and well differentiated from the sibling tools.

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?

The description opens with explicit guidance: 'Pick set for the initial skeleton, patch for iterative edits, get to read, check to measure overflow without writing.' It also explains when not to write, when context_token is required, and when to use the layout override, providing clear selection criteria and exclusions.

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