DevTune MCP

devtune_list_lookalike_sites

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Lookalike sites over 7, 30 or 90 days: cited hosts whose domain imitates one of the project's own domains, most cited first. signal says how it imitates it (confusable, suffix_swap, one_edit or brand_affix) and owned_domain which domain it imitates; registered_at, registrar and abuse_email (where the registrar takes abuse reports) come from the host's public registration record and are null when it has none. screen is null, or says why DevTune archived the host's action without alerting: other_company, when the answers that cited it describe another company's site. executions_citing counts the answers in the window that cited the host, out of executions_checked answers checked; citation_rate is null when no answer was checked, which is unmeasured, not zero. platforms splits both counts per AI platform, and coverage lists the answers checked per platform. An empty hosts list with answers checked means no lookalike was cited in the window. Use devtune_list_lookalike_site_citations with a host's id for the answers that cited it. Not found when Lookalike sites is not enabled for the account.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "devtune_list_lookalike_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`window`	No	Fixed rolling window in days: 7, 30, or 90. Defaults to 30.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / window / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "7",
-      "30",
-      "90"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      7,
-      30,
-      90
-    ],
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "7",
+      "30",
+      "90"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "const": 7,
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      {
+        "const": 30,
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      {
+        "const": 90,
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+]

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive behavior of its own: the meaning of a null citation_rate ("unmeasured, not zero"), the semantics of an empty hosts list, the enumerated screen values and why a host gets archived without alerting, and the feature-gating failure mode. With no output schema, this is the only place the return behavior is documented, and it does so thoroughly.

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?

Purpose and ranking are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence conveys new semantics (null handling, empty-list meaning, sibling routing). It is a dense wall of prose, however, and the field-by-field enumeration would be easier to scan as a list.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns, how each field should be interpreted, what nulls and empty results mean, how to drill into citations, and the feature-disabled failure case. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret it is missing.

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?

The single window parameter is fully documented in the schema (7/30/90 with a stated default of 30), and the description only restates the same three values without adding format or interaction details. With 100% schema coverage on a one-parameter tool, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("List Lookalike sites") plus scope: cited hosts whose domain imitates one of the project's own domains, ranked most-cited-first, over a rolling window. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from devtune_list_lookalike_site_citations, which the description explicitly routes to for per-host answers.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance (use devtune_list_lookalike_site_citations with a host's id for the citing answers) and a precondition ("Not found when Lookalike sites is not enabled for the account"). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-selection criteria beyond the one sibling pointer, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All DevTune MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?