Get a site's capabilities
get_siteGet the full list of capabilities a site declares, by domain.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | A domain, e.g. example.com |
capabilities-txt-registry
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation. No information about authentication, error handling, rate limits, or data freshness is provided, and no annotations exist to compensate.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently without extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the return format, edge cases, or additional context needed for effective use.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra meaning. The phrase 'by domain' is already implied by the parameter description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action (get), resource (list of capabilities of a site), and scope (by domain). It distinguishes from sibling tools like discover_capabilities and list_sites.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
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.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: searching capabilities, getting a site's capabilities, and listing all sites. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: discover_capabilities, get_site, list_sites. The style is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools is slightly low but appropriate for a read-only registry. The set covers the core operations: search, single lookup, and listing all entries.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface fully covers the apparent domain of querying the capabilities.txt registry. Includes search, site details, and site listing—no obvious gaps for read operations.