PageHub

Set site chat

set_site_chat

DestructiveIdempotent

Change the site's chat bot settings; only the fields you pass change. Leads save to Form Submissions as "Chat". Visitors see it while the owner has credits.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Site id.
`enabled`	No	Turn chat on or off.
`greeting`	No	First message visitors see.
`leadFields`	No	Details to collect before saving a lead. Must include email or phone.
`notifyEmail`	No	Extra address emailed for each lead. Empty stops.
`instructions`	No	Owner guidance: tone, what to push, what to avoid. Empty clears.
`assistantName`	No	Name shown in the chat header.
`dailyCreditCap`	No	Credits per UTC day for all chats; 0 pauses chat. Omit for the plan default.
`leadCollectionSlug`	No	Also save each lead as a row in this collection. Empty stops.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / dailyCreditCap

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Credits per UTC day for all chats; 0 pauses chat. Omit for the plan default.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 10, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / id / description
```
Previous value: -"Site id. Pass it on every call."New value: +"Site id."
```
AddedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds real context beyond them: partial-update behavior, that leads land in Form Submissions as 'Chat', and that visitors only see the chat while the owner has credits. It does not explain what 'destructive' concretely means (e.g. clearing fields via empty strings), which the schema covers but the description does not echo.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the side effects second. Every clause carries information, though the credits clause is slightly compressed and could be a touch clearer.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important non-obvious behaviors (partial update, lead routing to Form Submissions, credit-gated visibility). Permissions or failure modes are not addressed, keeping it short of a 5.

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 every one of the 9 parameters is already documented with constraints and empty-string semantics. The description only restates the optional/partial-update nature rather than adding field-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (change the site's chat bot settings) plus the partial-update semantics, which an agent can distinguish from the read-only sibling get_site_chat. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The line 'only the fields you pass change' implies this is the tool for partial updates and warns that omitted fields are untouched, which is genuine usage guidance. But there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to get_site_chat/other siblings for reads or resets.

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

All PageHub 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?