Skip to main content
Glama
vuluu2k

sbuilder-mcp

by vuluu2k
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sb_bind

Bind a page node directly to store data, replacing placeholders with actual product values. Set fields like article.author or categories from 79 sources, or turn any button into a purchase control with add_to_cart or buy_now.

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>"
forceNoOverride a render-inference guard; reported as forced
actionNoPass product.id + specials.boundProductId
sourceYese.g. article.author, article.categories, article.content, article.date; 79 in all, and a wrong one is refused with the list
dry_runNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.63.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / force
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Override a render-inference guard; reported as forced",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.60.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Previous value: -"e.g. article.author, article.categories, article.content, article.date; 78 in all, and a wrong one is refused with the list"New value: +"e.g. article.author, article.categories, article.content, article.date; 79 in all, and a wrong one is refused with the list"
  3. 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"
  4. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description indicates the tool modifies a node by binding it to real data, implying a mutation. This aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It also discloses that the action parameter turns a button into a purchase control, which is a specific side effect. However, it doesn't mention whether changes are reversible or if there are any guards beyond the 'force' parameter.

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 extremely concise, with only two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 the tool has six parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to, how 'source' should be used, or the behavior of 'force' and 'dry_run'. The agent needs more context to call this correctly, especially with many sibling tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description only mentions the 'action' parameter and doesn't explain 'id', 'source', 'force', or 'dry_run'. The schema provides descriptions for field, action, and source, but not for id, force, and dry_run. With 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the gaps, but it doesn't.

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 clearly states the tool binds a node to real store data, which is a specific action. It also notes that 'action' makes a button a purchase control, adding a concrete use case. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like sb_connect, the core purpose 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sb_connect or sb_live_join. It doesn't mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and context.

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