Skip to main content
Glama

Just Publish

by ai.justpublish

get_site_files

Read-only

Read the files of a site you already published, so you can make a targeted edit instead of rebuilding the whole site from memory. Returns a complete manifest (every file's path, size, content-type, sha256) plus the contents of the text files (HTML/CSS/JS/etc). Also returns the site's current version — pass it back to update_site_file so you don't overwrite a newer change. Pass paths to fetch only specific files; omit it to get all text files. Requires site_id + edit_token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsNoOptional. Specific file paths to return contents for (e.g. ['index.html','style.css']). Omit to get all text files. The manifest always lists every file regardless.
site_idYesThe site id returned at publish time.
edit_tokenYesThe edit token returned at publish time.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe live URL of the site.
filesYesInlined contents of the requested text files (default: all text files, capped for size).
site_idYesThe site's slug / id.
versionYesThe site's current version — pass as expected_version to update_site_file to avoid clobbering.
manifestYesEvery file on the site (always complete, regardless of which contents were inlined).
truncatedYestrue if some requested file contents were omitted for size — request specific paths to read them.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals that the tool returns a complete manifest (every file's path, size, content-type, sha256) plus contents of text files. It also notes the site's current 'version' and its role in preventing overwrites. This adds significant behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is succinct at five sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's utility, describing the return values, introducing the version field, explaining the paths parameter, and listing required inputs. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, optional paths, output schema present), the description completely covers the purpose, usage, return values, and safety mechanism (version). It provides all necessary context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by clarifying that 'paths' is optional and that the manifest always lists all files regardless, and that 'site_id' and 'edit_token' are obtained at publish time. This supplements the schema well.

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 clearly states the tool reads files of a published site for targeted edits. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'deploy' (publishing) and 'update_site_file' (modifying a single file) by emphasizing the read-only nature and the scope of returning a complete manifest and text file contents.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use: 'so you can make a targeted edit instead of rebuilding the whole site from memory.' It also explains how to use the optional 'paths' parameter and the 'version' field for safe updates, and lists required parameters: site_id + edit_token.

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

All Just Publish toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: deploy for full replacement/publishing, get_site_files for reading current state, and update_site_file for partial edits. No overlap or confusion between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Two tools follow verb_noun pattern (get_site_files, update_site_file), while deploy is a single verb. This is a minor inconsistency, but the naming is clear and readable overall.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools is slightly small but appropriate for the specific domain of static site deployment. Each tool serves a necessary function, and the number doesn't feel inadequate.

Completeness3/5

Core operations (create/replace, read, and partial update) are covered, but there is no way to delete individual files or list multiple sites. This leaves a notable gap in the tool surface.

Resources