get_build_statusCheck whether a site started by create_site has finished. Pass the claim_token create_site returned. Works WITHOUT signing in. Poll this every 30-60 seconds rather than calling create_site again — a second create_site call builds a SECOND site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim_token | Yes | The claim_token from create_site. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value beyond that by noting it works without signing in and recommending a polling cadence. The duplicate-site warning also helps prevent misuse, though return statuses are not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with the token requirement and polling guidance. No filler or redundant explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only status-check tool, the description covers purpose, token source, auth requirements, and polling behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and already specifies claim_token comes from create_site. The description repeats that provenance without adding new format or semantic details, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and resource ('a site started by create_site'), and clarifies the tool is about build completion. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_site and get_site.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage guidance: poll every 30-60 seconds instead of calling create_site again, and warns that a second create_site call creates a second site. This clearly tells the agent when and how to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct action/resource, with create, edit, file access, publishing, status, analytics, domains, and account clearly separated. The only possible ambiguity is edit_site vs write_site_files, since both modify a draft, but the descriptions clarify AI edit vs direct file push.
Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_site, list_sites, publish_site), which makes the set easy to navigate. Minor deviations: whoami doesn't follow the pattern, and get_analytics omits the site qualifier.
Twelve tools is a well-scoped size for a hosted website builder; the set covers creation, editing, file management, publishing, build status, analytics, domains, and account access. Each tool earns its place without bloating the surface.
The surface covers the core lifecycle well: create, draft/file read/write, publish, status, listing/details, analytics, and account. Missing delete/unpublish and a tool for reading form submissions are gaps, but they are minor relative to the covered workflows.