Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WebCake Storefront MCP

WebCake Storefront MCP

by vuluu2k
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

new_element

Read-only

Build a single structurally-valid element node from the real builder factory, then edit its style or specials and place it in a section's children.

Instructions

Build a single structurally-valid element node from the real builder factory. Returns the node — edit its specials/style, then place it in a section's children.

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": {
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "new_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
optsNoFactory opts: { text, src, width, height, style, config, specials, events, bindings, responsive, align }. align = horizontal placement in the grid cell: 'left'|'center'|'right'|'fill' (works on any element; buttons are content-width+centred by default — use align:'fill' to span the column).
typeYesElement type (see list_elements)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.31.8

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the node is structurally valid, comes from the 'real' (non-mock) factory, is returned unpersisted, and must be edited and then placed into a section's children. It doesn't cover failure modes or the returned node's shape, keeping it from 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action and return value, then the follow-up step. No filler; slightly compressed phrasing ('real builder factory') costs a bit of clarity.

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 2-param factory tool with no output schema, the description could say more about the returned node's structure (beyond naming specials/style) or how it relates to sibling builders. The schema covers inputs and it points at list_elements for types, so it is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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% with rich descriptions for both `opts` and `type`, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the workflow hint, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Build a single structurally-valid element node from the real builder factory.' Clear what it produces and distinguishes from siblings like new_section/new_row by scoping to a single element. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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?

It implies a workflow ('edit its specials/style, then place it in a section's children'), which tells the agent what to do after calling it. However it never states when to prefer this over alternatives (new_section, add_section, new_page_skeleton) or what prerequisites exist, so usage is only implied.

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