Skip to main content
Glama

nucleo-critical-set

Idempotent

Save a template's critical above-the-fold CSS, strip closing style tags, and cap the output at 50 KB to support faster first render.

Instructions

Saves the critical CSS of a template. The CSS is stripped of "</style" and limited to 50 KB.

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": {
      "template": "<template>",
      "css": "<css>"
    },
    "name": "nucleo-critical-set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cssYesCritical (above the fold) CSS of the template.
templateYesTemplate type, for example home, page, single, product.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses two concrete input transformations: '</style' is stripped and the payload is capped at 50 KB. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot learn from the schema. It stops short of saying whether existing critical CSS is overwritten or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by the input-handling caveats. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and input sanitization but omits replace-vs-merge semantics for existing critical CSS and any indication of what a successful save returns. Adequate but with a clear behavioral gap for a mutation.

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%, with both 'template' and 'css' documented including template type examples, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format, size, or validation detail beyond what is structured, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Saves the critical CSS of a template.' An agent can immediately tell this is a write operation scoped to per-template critical CSS. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling *-set tools, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the template must already exist), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and purpose sentence.

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