Skip to main content
Glama
vuluu2k

WebCake Landing MCP

by vuluu2k
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

validate_page

Read-only

Validates a page source against the JSON schema and semantic rules: unique ids, dangling event targets, children only on container types, missing field_name, top-level types, and form-data bindings (duplicate field_name within one form…

Instructions

Validates a page source against the JSON schema and semantic rules: unique ids, dangling event targets, children only on container types, missing field_name, top-level types, and form-data bindings (duplicate field_name within one form; dangling promoId / connectedSurvey / connectedForm / set_field_value targets). Before validating it applies deterministic layout corrections (off-canvas boxes moved on-canvas, elements below wrapped text moved down) and lists them in auto_fixed. Returns errors (structural problems that block saving) and warnings (visible layout defects such as overlapping text, off-canvas bounds, or empty bands).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageYesThe page source object { page:[...], settings:{} } OR a JSON string of it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.11
    • addedInput schema / properties / page / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "page"
+]
  2. First observedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real behavioral content: the deterministic auto-corrections applied before validation, the auto_fixed channel, and a meaningful errors-vs-warnings distinction (blocking vs. visible defects). There is mild tension between 'applies deterministic layout corrections' and readOnlyHint=true, but since it explicitly reports them in auto_fixed rather than persisting, this reads as a pure computation rather than a genuine contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then two dense but information-bearing sentences. The rule enumerations are long, but each clause corresponds to a distinct class of check the agent may need to reason about, so little is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return contract (errors, warnings, auto_fixed) and explains what each channel means. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter validator, with the only gap being guidance on when in a workflow to invoke it and whether the corrected page must be re-saved.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that 'page' accepts either the source object or a JSON string of it. The description adds no format, size, or encoding guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Validates a page source') and then enumerates the exact rule families checked (unique ids, dangling event targets, container-only children, form-data bindings). No sibling tool performs validation, so an agent can distinguish this immediately from layout, render_preview, or create_page.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'errors (structural problems that block saving)' hints that this is a pre-save gate, but the description never explicitly says when to call it versus alternatives such as render_preview, layout, or patch_page. No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are stated.

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