lekta

List saved sites on this account

lekta_my_sites

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the sites saved on the authenticated Lekta account: URL, latest authoritative grade and score, when it was last audited, and the recheck interval where a schedule is on. This is account inventory, not a measurement. PARAMETERS: none — this tool takes no arguments; call it with an empty arguments object. USE THIS first in a session to see which URLs this account already tracks before picking one to pass to lekta_audit, lekta_fix_plan or lekta_diff, or to answer "which of my pages has the worst grade" and "which pages are on a schedule". DO NOT expect a fresh measurement (lekta_audit does that), sites belonging to other accounts, or arbitrary URLs — and do not expect to change anything here: sites are added and removed on the web panel at lekta.dev/en/panel, not over MCP. An account with no saved sites gets an explicit empty-list message, not an error. COST AND BEHAVIOUR: free and idempotent — no fetch to any site, no quota. Each grade shown is the last AUTHORITATIVE (scorable) run for that URL, the same definition the web panel and the badge use; when a newer attempt existed but could not be scored, that is stated on its own line, so the grade is neither hidden nor silently presented as current.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "lekta_my_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses additional behavioral details: 'no fetch to any site, no quota', the authoritative-grade semantics with explicit handling of unscored newer attempts, and the empty-list response instead of an error. These details meaningfully enhance transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is verbose and contains redundancy, such as repeating 'the same definition the web panel and the badge use' and restating idempotency and read-only behavior which are already in the annotations. While the structure uses clear sections, several sentences could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's context: its purpose, output fields, edge cases (empty list, unscored newer attempts), and limitations (no fresh measurement, account scope, no mutation). Given the absence of an output schema, this prose provides a complete picture of what the caller can expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no properties and coverage is 100%, so there is little to add. The description goes slightly beyond by explicitly stating 'PARAMETERS: none — this tool takes no arguments; call it with an empty arguments object', which reinforces the calling convention in prose.

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 clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Lists the sites saved on the authenticated Lekta account' and enumerates the returned fields (URL, grade, score, last audit, recheck interval). It also differentiates itself from siblings by calling it 'account inventory, not a measurement' and by contrast with lekta_audit.

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?

The description explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'USE THIS first in a session to see which URLs this account already tracks before picking one to pass to lekta_audit, lekta_fix_plan or lekta_diff'. It also states when not to use it, e.g., 'DO NOT expect a fresh measurement (lekta_audit does that)' and clarifies account scope and panel-based management.

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

All lekta tools Inspect

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

Need Help?