WebCake Storefront MCP

get_page_element

Read-only

Retrieve full details for one storefront page element by ID, including styles, config, events, bindings, responsive settings, and child IDs.

Instructions

Get full detail of a single element by its ID (e.g. 'TEXT-3', 'BUTTON-1', 'SECTION-2'). Returns style, config, specials, events, bindings, responsive, and children IDs

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>",
      "element_id": "<element_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_page_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_id`	Yes	Page ID
`element_id`	Yes	Element ID (e.g. 'TEXT-3', 'BUTTON-1')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.31.8Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned facets (style, config, specials, events, bindings, responsive, children IDs), which is the main behavioral context an agent needs here.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The return-field list is compact and earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by summarizing what is returned. Combined with readOnlyHint and full param coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the missing sibling disambiguation is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented, so baseline 3 applies. The ID examples in the description largely duplicate the examples already present in the element_id schema field, adding little beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get full detail') and resource ('a single element by its ID') with concrete ID examples ('TEXT-3', 'BUTTON-1'). It is distinguishable from list_elements/search_page_elements, though it never names the near-identical sibling get_element to disambiguate.

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 implied by saying it fetches full detail for a single element when you have its ID. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_element or list_elements, despite several highly similar siblings.

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

Deploy Server