Staats

Update site context

update_site_context

DestructiveIdempotent

Save or amend what a site is for. Provided context fields are merged into the existing context (events merges per entry); a null value deletes its key. name/domain update the site record itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	update the site's display name
`site`	No	the site's data-site code, from its script tag or list_sites. Omit when the account has a single site. In a tracked project, read the code from the script tag before asking the user.
`goals`	No	what the owner wants from it; null deletes
`notes`	No	open agenda items to check at session start; null deletes
`domain`	No	update the site's domain
`events`	No	map of event name -> one-line meaning; record one whenever you add tracking. null deletes an entry.
`funnel`	No	the site's canonical conversion steps, same shape as the funnel tool's steps. null clears it.
`audience`	No	who the site is for; null deletes
`description`	No	what the site is; null deletes
`retention_days`	No	shorten this site's data retention below the plan default; 0 restores plan-default retention. DESTRUCTIVE: shortening schedules permanent deletion of older events at the nightly prune. Confirm with the owner first.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`site`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`context`	Yes
`updated`	Yes
`retention`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: fields are merged, events merge per entry, null deletes a key, and name/domain update the site record rather than context. These are concrete, non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the two most important behavioral caveats follow immediately. It does not repeat what the schema already documents.

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?

The tool is complex with 10 parameters and nested objects, but the schema, annotations, and output schema cover the remaining details thoroughly. The description supplies the essential cross-cutting behavior needed for correct invocation, including merge semantics, null deletion behavior, and the distinction between context fields and site-record fields.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so individual parameters are already well documented. The description adds cross-cutting meaning that the schema cannot express, especially the global merge contract and the events per-entry merge rule. It also clarifies that name and domain are record-level updates.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Save or amend what a site is for.' It further clarifies the tool's scope by distinguishing context fields from name/domain updates to the site record itself. This makes it clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling get_site_context.

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 context is implied by the verbs 'save or amend' and the merge/null semantics, but there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_site_context or create_site. The reference to the funnel tool is about parameter shape, not tool selection.

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

All Staats tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource or action: site management, site context, annotations, overviews, dimensional queries, funnels, journeys, and anomaly checks. Overlapping pairs like funnel/journeys are explicitly disambiguated in the descriptions, and what_broke vs what_changed cleanly separate problems from notable movements.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern such as create_site, list_annotations, and update_site_context, but funnel, journeys, portfolio_overview, what_broke, and what_changed break that pattern. The names are still readable and somewhat grouped by intent, but the mixed conventions make it harder to predict a tool's role from its name alone.

Tool Count5/5

At 15 tools this sits at the upper edge of the ideal range, and each tool earns its place: site lifecycle, context, annotation timeline, core analytics, discovery reports, and post-deploy checks are all covered. There is no obvious redundancy or filler.

Completeness4/5

The set covers site management, context editing, annotations, overview/query/funnel/journeys/portfolio analytics, and what_broke/what_changed checks, so most workflows have no dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to edit or delete a mistaken annotation and no explicit tool for updating data-retention settings, but these are workaroundable rather than blocking.

Resources

Need Help?