Skip to main content
Glama
vuluu2k

sbuilder-mcp

by vuluu2k
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sb_bind

Bind a node to live store data to display real products instead of placeholders, and configure buttons as purchase controls.

Instructions

Bind a node to real store data so the page shows actual products, not placeholder text. action makes a button a purchase control.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
fieldYesWhere the value lands, always "specials.<key>"
actionNoPass product.id + specials.boundProductId
sourceYese.g. article.author, article.categories, article.content, article.date; 78 in all, and a wrong one is refused with the list
dry_runNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.12.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / action
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pass product.id + specials.boundProductId",
+  "enum": [
+    "add_to_cart",
+    "buy_now"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Previous value: -"One of: article.author, article.categories, article.content, article.date, article.image, article.summary, article.tags, article.title, article.url, category.description, category.image, category.title, category.url, product.compareAtCents, product.compareAtPrice, product.description, product.id, product.image, product.images, product.price, product.priceCents, product.ratingAverage, product.ratingCount, product.title, product.url, product.vendor"New value: +"e.g. article.author, article.categories, article.content, article.date; 78 in all, and a wrong one is refused with the list"
  2. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) provide minimal behavioral info. The description adds only a cryptic hint about the action parameter ('makes a button a purchase control') but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or error behavior. For a tool that performs a binding operation, this is a significant gap.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds something, but the second sentence is under-specified and could be clearer. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks important details.

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 tool with 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It does not explain the id or dry_run parameters, what the binding actually does to the page, whether it is reversible, or what the expected return is. An agent would need to inspect the schema and make many assumptions.

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 60% (field, action, source are described; id and dry_run are not). The description adds a small extra hint about action, but it is vague compared to the schema's own description ('Pass product.id + specials.boundProductId'). Overall, the description does not substantially compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 ('Bind') and resource ('node to real store data'), and clarifies the outcome (shows actual products, not placeholder text). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings like sb_connect or sb_node_read, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions. The agent is left without direction on selecting this tool among the 30+ siblings.

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