list_sitesCombined OVERVIEW of everything published from this Nippy account, in two groups: permanent sites (no expiry) and temporary previews (expiry times shown). Each group is truncated to the first 10, with totals — for a complete list of one kind, use list_permanent_sites or list_previews.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains grouping, truncation to the first 10, presence of totals, and expiry-time display for previews. These behavioral details go beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, letting an agent accurately predict what the result will contain even without an output schema.
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 one well-organized sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the behavioral boundaries and a pointer to alternatives. Every phrase provides useful information and there is no repetition of schema or annotation data.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the response is, how it is structured, the truncation rule, and how to reach a full enumeration if needed. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is left unstated.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the parameter semantics baseline is 4 and the description needs no parameter explanation. The input schema is empty and fully covered by nature, so nothing additional is required.
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 the tool provides a combined OVERVIEW of all published content, split into permanent sites and temporary previews. It also distinguishes itself from siblings list_permanent_sites and list_previews by positioning itself as the summary view rather than the complete list.
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 tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (a truncated overview) and when it is not (when a complete list of one kind is needed), naming the alternative sibling tools. This gives the agent a clear selection rule without ambiguity.
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.