Skip to main content
Glama

Website metadata and contacts

site_metadata
Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract a website's title, description, language, social profiles, public contact emails and phones, key pages (contact, pricing, careers, docs), RSS feeds and schema.org organization data. Price: $0.002 per call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "site_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesWebsite URL or domain, e.g. notion.so

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait not present in the structured fields: the price of $0.002 per call. It does not disclose failure modes or rate limits, but the cost disclosure is valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the extraction scope and then the price. The enumeration is long but each item is a distinct output, and the price is separated cleanly. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description effectively enumerates the return values (title, description, language, social profiles, emails, phones, key pages, feeds, schema.org data). Cost and safety annotations are covered. The main gap is the lack of guidance relative to sibling tools.

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%, with the single url parameter already documented with an example ('notion.so'). The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Extract') and a precise resource (a website's title, description, language, social profiles, contacts, key pages, feeds, schema.org data). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like company_profile or domain_report.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of extracted website metadata, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as company_profile or domain_report, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.