Skip to main content
Glama

SiteGuardian

by io.github.gweber

list_monitored_domains

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the full list of domains under continuous SiteGuardian monitoring for the authenticated account. Each entry includes the domain, current security grade (A–F), timestamp of the last completed scan, and a relative dashboard URL.

Use this when the user asks what they are monitoring, wants an inventory summary, or needs to look up a specific domain's exact spelling before calling get_domain_status / get_drift_events / get_fix_recommendations. The list is scoped entirely by the API key — there is no filter parameter to widen or narrow the result.

Do NOT use this to enumerate domains the user does not own or monitor — it only returns their own inventory. Do NOT call it to trigger a scan (it does not); use scan_domain for one-off checks. Requires a valid API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainsYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent, but the description adds valuable context: API-key scoping, no filter parameter, and that it does not trigger scans. Also notes the auth requirement and return contents, going beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short, focused paragraphs: function, when-to-use, and exclusions. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or 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 no parameters and an output schema, the description still explains the return fields, scope boundaries, and sibling-tool relationships. Offers complete guidance for correct invocation and interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters, the input schema is trivially covered. The description explicitly confirms there is no filter parameter, preventing the agent from imagining optional inputs. This adds meaningful semantic clarification beyond the empty schema.

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?

Clearly states it returns the full list of monitored domains for the authenticated account, with specific fields. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning them as separate actions (get_status, get_drift_events, etc.).

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (inventory summary, exact spelling lookup) and when not to use (other people's domains, triggering scans), naming scan_domain as the alternative. Perfectly clear selection criteria.

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