Skip to main content
Glama

SiteGuardian

by io.github.gweber

get_domain_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the current security grade (A–F), last-scan timestamp, and list of active issues for a domain that is ALREADY under SiteGuardian monitoring by the authenticated account. Each issue carries a stable id, a severity, a short title, and an impact description. The response also includes a relative dashboard URL.

Use this when the user asks about the current state of a specific monitored domain, wants to confirm a recent change landed, or needs issue ids to call get_fix_recommendations with a specific issue_id.

Do NOT use this for domains not yet under monitoring — it will return a domain_not_monitored error; call scan_domain for one-off checks instead. Compliance framework tags (NIS2 / GDPR / DORA) are NOT included in v1; framework tagging on the monitored-domain path is tracked as a follow-up. Requires a valid API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gradeNo
domainYes
last_scan_atNo
active_issuesYes
dashboard_urlYes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: returns domain_not_monitored error for unmonitored domains, excludes compliance framework tags in v1, and requires a valid API key. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value: return contents, use cases, error scenario, and version limitation. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, with exclusions following. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present) and strong annotations, the description covers essential operational context: when to use, when not to use, error behavior, API key requirement, and version limitations. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides only a 'domain' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the domain must be 'ALREADY under SiteGuardian monitoring by the authenticated account', which gives the parameter practical meaning beyond a bare string. It does not specify format details but is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 tool returns security grade, last-scan timestamp, active issues, and a dashboard URL for a monitored domain. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_monitored_domains and scan_domain by specifying 'specific monitored domain' and explicitly naming alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the user asks about the current state of a specific monitored domain, wants to confirm a recent change landed, or needs issue ids'. It also provides a clear exclusion with a specific error behavior and directs users to scan_domain for unmonitored domains.

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

All SiteGuardian toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing monitored domains, checking current status, reviewing drift history, getting fix recommendations, and scanning unmonitored domains. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference and warn against misuse, making selection unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a predictable verb_noun pattern: get_domain_status, get_drift_events, get_fix_recommendations, list_monitored_domains, and scan_domain. The use of 'list_' for the collection and 'scan_' for the action is consistent and intuitive.

Tool Count5/5

The five tools are well-scoped for a security monitoring API, covering inventory, current state, change history, remediation, and one-off scanning. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the primary read-side and scanning workflows, but lacks an explicit tool to add a domain to continuous monitoring, which is a natural next step from scan_domain. This is a minor lifecycle gap that agents can work around by directing users to the website.

Resources