Skip to main content
Glama
vuluu2k

sbuilder-mcp

by vuluu2k
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sb_store

Runs fixed-order Store Builder store flows: create and publish checkout, seed form templates, or build shared site header/footer; dry run previews the plan.

Instructions

Run a store flow that must happen in a fixed order. action:"checkout" makes the order form, configures it, saves its fields with this store's real payment and delivery options, then creates and PUBLISHES the checkout page — /checkout 404s without all four. action:"form" seeds any of the platform's other form templates (login, register, forgot, reset, verify, contact, subscribe, booking, review and more) with its own field document, which is the part that cannot be guessed. action:"chrome" gives every page ONE shared header, built from the pages this site already has — the gap sb_review reports as siteChrome. Dry run returns the plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoaction:"form" — the form's name in the merchant's list
actionYes
footerNoaction:"chrome" — build a shared FOOTER instead of a header
dry_runNo
site_idNo
headlineNo
languageNoCopy language, default vi
templateNoaction:"form" — which of the platform's own form templates to seed
page_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.39.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "checkout",
-  "form"
-]New value: +[
+  "checkout",
+  "form",
+  "chrome"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / footer
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "action:\"chrome\" — build a shared FOOTER instead of a header",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Addedv0.12.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare not-readOnly, not-destructive, open-world; the description adds real behavioral weight by disclosing that checkout CREATES and PUBLISHES a page, that form seeds a field document, that chrome writes one shared header, and that dry run returns a plan instead of executing. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or whether re-running overwrites existing pages, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 ordering rule is front-loaded and each sentence maps to one action, so nothing is padding. It is dense and jargon-heavy ('field document', 'siteChrome', 'part that cannot be guessed'), which costs a little readability, but the structure is functional.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and incomplete schema coverage, the description explains the action semantics well but never says what a call returns on success, how errors surface, or what headline/page_name/site_id do. It is minimally sufficient to choose an action, not fully sufficient to invoke confidently.

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?

With schema coverage at only 44%, the description's explanation of the action enum (checkout vs form vs chrome), what 'name' and 'template' mean for action:"form", and what 'footer' means for action:"chrome" carries the load for the most important parameters. However, headline, page_name, site_id, and dry_run semantics are never explained in prose or schema, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 names three concrete flows (checkout, form, chrome) and states exactly what each produces: a published checkout page, a seeded form from a platform template, or a single shared header. That is a specific verb+resource per action, and it makes the tool's scope distinguishable from publishing/navigation siblings like sb_publish and sb_page_create.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the sequencing constraint ('must happen in a fixed order') and the failure condition ('/checkout 404s without all four'), which tells the agent when the checkout action is required. It also implies a relationship to sb_review (the siteChrome gap) but never names an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, keeping it below a 5.

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