lekta_my_sitesLists the sites saved on the authenticated Lekta account with the latest grade, score and scheduled-recheck setting. USE THIS to see what this account already tracks before auditing something new. DO NOT expect sites from other accounts or a fresh measurement — it reads stored state only. COST: free, takes no parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: it reads stored state only, returns no fresh measurement, and is account-scoped. It also states cost and zero parameters, leaving no hidden operational traits.
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 description is compact, front-loads the core action in the first sentence, and uses clear directives ('USE THIS', 'DO NOT') and a COST line. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to scan.
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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states the account scope, the stored-state behavior, the included fields, and usage context. No output schema exists, but the description already names what the return contains.
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 is empty and the description confirms 'takes no parameters.' With zero parameters there is little to explain, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no param-specific meaning but correctly signals there are no arguments.
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 and resource: 'Lists the sites saved on the authenticated Lekta account' and identifies exactly what data is returned (grade, score, scheduled-recheck setting). It also distinguishes the tool from a fresh audit by noting it 'reads stored state only.'
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS to see what this account already tracks before auditing something new.' It also gives when-not-to-use boundaries: 'DO NOT expect sites from other accounts or a fresh measurement,' which routes the agent toward lekta_audit for fresh measurements.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: audit, report, diff, fix_plan, and my_sites are clearly separated. The only potential confusion is between lekta_audit and lekta_report, but their output formats and use cases are explicitly differentiated.
All tools share the lekta_ prefix and use lowercase snake_case, which provides strong consistency. The pattern is not strictly verb_noun for every tool (e.g., lekta_my_sites, lekta_report), but these are minor deviations that do not harm readability.
Five tools is well-scoped for the domain of audit tracking and remediation. Each tool serves a necessary step in the workflow without adding redundant or unnecessary surface area.
The toolkit covers the full audit lifecycle: performing an audit, retrieving structured results, comparing versions, generating fix plans, and listing tracked sites. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.