chorus.host

Check site status

get_site

Read-only

Check a beacon.host site: whether it is live, its URL, whether it has a password, and when it expires. With the site's claim_token (or an API key that owns the site) it also returns the file list, total size, live version and claim link. Use it to confirm a publish worked, to see when an anonymous site expires, or to see what is published at a slug.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The site's slug, i.e. the subdomain in <slug>.beacon.host. A full URL also works.
`claim_token`	No	Optional claim_token (ctk_...) of the site. Unlocks the file list and other details.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`slug`	Yes
`files`	No	File paths of the live version (first 200).
`title`	No
`status`	Yes	live, not_live (created but nothing published yet) or not_found (never published, expired or deleted).
`claimed`	No	Whether an account owns the site. Only returned when can_manage is true.
`summary`	Yes
`claim_url`	No
`can_manage`	Yes	True when the claim_token or API key you sent lets you update this site.
`created_at`	No
`expires_at`	No	When the site will be deleted (RFC 3339). Empty for sites that never expire.
`file_count`	No
`updated_at`	No
`total_bytes`	No
`files_truncated`	No
`current_version_id`	No
`password_protected`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / slug / description

Previous value: -"The site's slug, i.e. the subdomain in <slug>.chorus.host. A full URL also works."New value: +"The site's slug, i.e. the subdomain in <slug>.beacon.host. A full URL also works."

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: output is conditional, with the file list, total size, live version and claim link only returned when a claim_token or an owning API key is supplied.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads the usage scenarios. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. For a two-parameter read tool, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that an API key that owns the site can substitute for the claim_token — an authorization nuance the schema does not state.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (a beacon.host site) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: live status, URL, password protection, expiry. This clearly separates it from publish_site (write) and get_docs (documentation).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives three concrete use cases: confirming a publish worked, checking anonymous-site expiry, and inspecting what is published at a slug. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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

All chorus.host tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?