Read remaining preview time. uploadId is the UUID (a preview URL is OK). Does not scan, does not reset the clock, never 402. If claimable is false, the preview was deleted — call upload_url, PUT a new zip, inspect, then claim. Do not inspect or claim the old id. Do not pay. Use this instead of inspect when you only need the clock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uploadId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the no-scan behavior, that the clock is not reset, that it never returns 402, and that claimable: false means the preview was deleted. This gives an agent an accurate model of side effects and failure modes.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every following sentence adds decision-relevant guidance. The workflow and caution about the old id are dense but not bloated.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete. It explains the single input, the core result, the deletion case, and the correct fallback path. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without needing additional context.
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 schema only gives uploadId as a string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that uploadId is the UUID and that a preview URL is also acceptable, which is essential for calling the tool correctly.
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 opens with a concrete action and resource: 'Read remaining preview time.' It further distinguishes itself by naming inspect and the condition to prefer this tool, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without needing to open the schemas.
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?
It explicitly states when to use this tool instead of inspect: when you only need the clock. It also describes the exact recovery workflow when claimable is false, and tells the agent what not to do (do not inspect or claim the old id, do not pay).
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 has a clearly distinct role in the website lifecycle: upload, scan, inspect, check status, claim, edit, renew, connect domain, and run the full publish flow. Even publish_website, which orchestrates other steps, is clearly higher-level and wouldn't be confused with individual action tools.
All names are lowercase snake_case and mostly verb-first (claim, edit, inspect, renew, scan, upload_url, publish_website). A couple are noun-noun compounds like preview_status and connect_custom_hostname, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
Nine tools is a good scope for a website publishing/hosting service. Each tool covers an essential step without unnecessary redundancy, and the pipeline from upload to claim to renew is clearly represented.
The tool set covers the core workflow comprehensively: upload, scan, preview, claim, edit, renew, and custom domains. A minor gap is that there is no direct tool to check the live site's remaining lease time, which is relevant for renewal eligibility, though the workflow works around it through publish/renew context.