Skip to main content
Glama

List website files

list_website_files
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists every file saved on a website, with each path and its size in bytes, beside the viewUrl, keepUrl, pages, passed and any problems. It changes nothing. The paths are the ones read_website_file and delete_website_file take.

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": {
      "websiteId": "<websiteId>"
    },
    "name": "list_website_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
editKeyNoThe editKey start_website returned, which proves the website is the caller's. Leave it out for a website in the connected account.
websiteIdYesThe websiteId start_website returned, or one list_sites shows.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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 structurally clear. The description goes further by disclosing the returned fields—path, size in bytes, viewUrl, keepUrl, pages, passed, and problems—which is valuable context 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 short, front-loaded, and wastes little space. The phrase listing returned fields is slightly dense but still efficient.

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 simple read-only listing tool with complete schema coverage and strong annotations, the description provides enough context. It notes that nothing changes and lists the returned data, so no critical caller information 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists every file saved on a website. It also names the returned file attributes and distinguishes the tool from siblings by saying the paths are the ones read_website_file and delete_website_file take.

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 clearly implies the tool is the way to discover paths before using read_website_file or delete_website_file, which is useful usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but no obvious alternative file-listing sibling exists.

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