list_sitesList the team's sites (name, URL, status, last deploy), most recently updated first, up to 100. Use list_sites to find a site name; use get_site for one site's files, source status and history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeDeleted | No | If true, also list soft-deleted sites still inside their plan's restore window (status 'deleted'). Default false. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sites | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / includeDeleted / descriptionPrevious value: -"If true, include soft-deleted sites still in their plan-specific recovery window (status: 'deleted'). Defaults to false: deleted sites can't accept deploys, so an agent rarely wants them in a working list. Use true when you specifically need the recovery view."New value: +"If true, also list soft-deleted sites still inside their plan's restore window (status 'deleted'). Default false."Output schema / properties / request_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior in the ordering ('most recently updated first') and the hard 100-result cap. It doesn't say what happens past 100 (truncation vs. paging) and defers the soft-delete/restore-window semantics to the schema, so it's strong but not exhaustive.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the payload/ordering/cap front-loaded before the sibling routing. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, though the description redundantly lists the key fields. The only real gap is behavior at/after the 100-item limit; otherwise the definition covers everything required to call 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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including default and restore-window semantics for includeDeleted. The description adds nothing about it and none is needed; baseline 3 applies where the schema does all the work.
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?
States a precise verb+resource ('List the team's sites') plus the returned fields, ordering, and result cap, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also contrasts itself with get_site, making it distinguishable from the many siblings without opening a schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use list_sites to find a site name; use get_site for one site's files, source status and history.' The selection condition between the two list/detail siblings is stated, not implied.
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.