Skip to main content
Glama

What to do next on this website, in order

next_steps
Read-only

Use this when the customer wants direction rather than data: 'what should I do', 'where do I start', 'what's most important', 'help me with this site', 'we just signed up'. Also use it before writing any remediation or action plan — it names what is BLOCKING, which is routinely something other than the accessibility findings, and a plan written without it can be entirely correct and reach no visitor at all. Returns an ordered list of concrete next actions for one website, each naming the tool or the panel page that performs it, why it sits where it does, and whether anything below it is blocked until it is done. The ordering is by dependency: a widget that has never reported in outranks everything, a site with no scan on record outranks reading findings, and existing findings outrank upgrading a plan. Steps that need a higher plan are included with the plan named, rather than dropped, so the answer does not quietly become a description of the current plan. What it does NOT do: it performs none of the steps. It starts no scan, changes no setting, installs nothing and charges nothing. It lists no individual accessibility violations either — list_violations and the other finding tools own those, and this points at them. Works on every plan including Free; on a plan without scan data the steps are the account and coverage ones, and the missing scan data is itself named as a step. Read-only: it is composed from site_overview's reads, so it costs about what that call costs and loads no page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the dependency-based ordering logic, that plan-gated steps are named rather than dropped, that a missing scan is itself surfaced as a step, that the call executes no action and charges nothing, and that it costs roughly what site_overview's reads cost. This far exceeds what the annotations alone convey.

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 long, but the length is earned: it must differentiate among 35 siblings and carry return-value details since there is no output schema. It is front-loaded, opening with when-to-use, then return shape, ordering, exclusions, and cost. A small amount of ground already covered by annotations (read-only safety) is restated, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and heavy sibling overlap, this description is complete: it documents the return structure, the ordering principle, plan-dependent behavior, exclusions, sibling handoff, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it or interpret its result is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents 'website' as the domain registered in Inclusify with an example. The description's 'for one website' phrasing aligns with the parameter but adds no format or value semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Returns an ordered list of concrete next actions for one website.' It differentiates from siblings explicitly, naming list_violations as the owner of individual violations and clarifying it 'starts no scan,' which separates it from start_crawl and the finding tools without opening their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers with customer phrasing examples ('what should I do', 'we just signed up') plus a workflow cue ('before writing any remediation or action plan'). It also tells the agent when NOT to use it: it lists no individual accessibility violations, routing those to list_violations and the other finding tools.

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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The descriptions do exceptional cross-referencing work, explicitly separating near-neighbor pairs (add_website vs add_domain, list_alt_findings vs check_page_alt_text, plan_options vs billing_link, widget_status vs widget_usage). A few clusters remain that an agent could confuse without reading carefully, notably site_overview vs compliance_status (both report statement existence and scan-record state) and crawl_summary vs list_monitored_pages vs site_overview (all touch coverage numbers). Overall, distinct purposes are clearly delineated despite the large surface.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are lowercase snake_case with strong family patterns: list_* (5 tools), add_* (3), set_* (7), plus org_* and *_history pairs. The main inconsistency is the mix of verb-led names (list_violations, set_slack_channel, start_crawl) with noun-led read names (site_overview, compliance_status, widget_usage, next_steps), but the noun-led names follow a coherent 'what it returns' vocabulary (status, summary, history, overview, rollup). Minor deviations rather than chaos.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is heavy and sits above the 25-tool threshold where agent navigation starts to degrade, but the server covers a genuinely broad domain: website lifecycle, monitoring, four finding types, four live-audit tools, seven config setters, org rollups, billing, and CI. Most tools earn their place and none are duplicates, but several could plausibly be merged (set_slack_channel/set_slack_events/set_monitoring_settings into one notifications tool; list_violations/list_alt_findings/list_content_findings with a filter). The count is on the edge of unwieldy for an agent's tool-selection step.

Completeness3/5

The read/audit/analysis side is rich and well-covered: findings, history, live checks, org rollups, coverage, and validation all have tools. However, the write side is one-directional: add_monitored_pages is explicitly add-only, and there is no remove_website, remove_domain, or remove_monitored_pages, so teardown and 'stop monitoring this page' requests hit dead ends that the descriptions acknowledge belong to the panel. Statement content writing and widget installation are also panel/browser-only by design, which is documented but still leaves those operations outside the agent's reach.