get_websiteGet a single monitored website by ID, including all of its keywords and their statuses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| websiteId | Yes | Monitored website ID (UUID) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | The monitored website with its keywords and their statuses. |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the response includes all keywords and their statuses. No side effects need disclosure, and the output schema covers return structure.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and target, with no filler or redundant phrases. Every part of the description earns its place.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the key return content (keywords and statuses), and the input is fully specified in the schema. Nothing material is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the websiteId parameter is already described as a UUID. The description only restates 'by ID' in natural language, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('single monitored website'), identifier method ('by ID'), and return scope ('including all of its keywords and their statuses'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_websites (bulk listing) and update_website (mutation).
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 phrase 'single ... by ID' clearly implies this tool is for fetching one known resource, with list_websites as the natural alternative for multiple websites. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or give an explicit when-not-to-use condition.
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 maps to a distinct resource and action: website CRUD, keyword lifecycle, mention queries/updates, alert settings, and billing previews. Even similar tools like list_mentions/count_mentions and activate_pending_keywords/preview_activate_pending are clearly separated as listing vs counting and action vs preview.
The vast majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_websites, create_website, update_mention_status, preview_keyword_billing). The only noticeable outlier is keyword_change_usage, which reads like a noun phrase instead of get_keyword_change_usage, and activate_pending_keywords/preview_activate_pending invert verb placement.
21 tools is on the higher side for an MCP server, but the count is justified by the number of distinct resources (websites, keywords, mentions, alerts, billing) and the need for action/preview pairs. It feels slightly heavy but not bloated.
The server covers the core lifecycle for websites, keywords, mentions, alerts, and billing previews with no dead ends: create/list/update/delete resources and status transitions are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct current-plan retrieval and no bulk mention status updates, but agents can work around these.