Skip to main content
Glama

Read a website

website_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

A site with every page of its draft (sections, posts), its settings, the kept versions and whether the draft has changes that aren't published yet. Free.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "website_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesThe site's name, as in cncto.co/w/<name>.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context about what is returned: draft pages, settings, kept versions, and unpublished changes. It does not explain permissions or response structure, but adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is compact, consisting of one content-focused sentence plus 'Free.' It front-loads the returned information, though its noun-phrase structure is less direct than an imperative sentence.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned contents. It does not cover error conditions or prerequisites, but the core read behavior is sufficiently described.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single site parameter, the schema already explains the expected name format. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the resource and its contents clearly: every draft page, settings, kept versions, and unpublished-change status. However, it does not use an explicit verb like 'get' and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as website_list, website_preview, or website_settings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus website_list, website_preview, or website_settings. The word 'Free' describes cost, not tool selection context.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources