list_monitored_sitesList the sites your Orbilo team monitors, with the latest grade per spec (UCP, WebMCP, Access), how many issues are open on each, and how many sites the plan still allows. Use this when someone asks what they are monitoring, how their sites are doing, or whether they can add another site. Requires a connected Orbilo account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, including the requirement for a connected Orbilo account and the quota visibility ('how many sites the plan still allows'), which helps set expectations without contradicting 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary action and output contents, and the second sentence gives user-intent triggers plus a prerequisite. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the title.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the call returns, when to call it, and what conditions are required. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool 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?
The input schema has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add at the parameter level. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the sites your Orbilo team monitors,' and enumerates exactly what is returned (latest grade per spec, open issues, remaining plan allotment). This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like check_site, get_site_status, and get_report.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this when someone asks what they are monitoring, how their sites are doing, or whether they can add another site.' It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, but the usage context is clear and actionable, plus it notes the connected-account prerequisite.
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 targets a distinct action: live one-off checking, fetching a stored report, adding a monitored site, listing monitored sites, and retrieving a single site's status. The descriptions explicitly contrast when to use check_site versus get_site_status, so there is no meaningful ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: add_, check_, get_, get_, list_. The verbs map cleanly to their operations, and there is no mixing of conventions or vague generic names.
Five tools is well-scoped for a site-readiness checking and monitoring service. Each tool contributes a distinct capability without unnecessary overlap or bloat.
The one-off checking flow is well covered with check_site and get_report, and the monitoring read side is covered by list_monitored_sites and get_site_status. However, the monitoring lifecycle is incomplete: sites can be added but there is no tool to stop monitoring, remove a site, or update monitoring settings, which is a notable gap.