Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PixelGlass

by co.pixelglass
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

The site pages' history

site_pages_history
Read-onlyDestructive

On one site of the account, named in site. The site folder's commits, newest first: sha, author, when, message — each one what the site showed from then. restore_site_pages takes a sha and is the rollback.

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": "site_pages_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesThe site to work on, as list_sites names it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true but also destructiveHint=true; the description frames this as a read-only history and explicitly assigns rollback to restore_site_pages, contradicting destructiveHint. It also omits pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with scope and return fields. The telegraphic phrasing is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only history tool with no output schema, it lists returned fields and ordering, which is useful. It omits pagination or result-size behavior, and the destructive annotation conflict leaves behavioral context incomplete.

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?

Only one parameter is present, and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already says site is as list_sites names it. The description adds that it is one site of the account, but no extra format or constraints.

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?

States the resource (the site folder's commits), the ordering (newest first), and the returned fields, and names restore_site_pages as the rollback sibling. It never uses an explicit verb like list, but the intent is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It implies inspecting history here and using restore_site_pages for rollback, giving a clear alternative for the destructive action. It does not cover when to use list_site_pages or read_site_page, but the main alternative is named.

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

All PixelGlass toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources