Skip to main content
Glama

Site DNA

get_site_dna
Read-onlyIdempotent

The project's brand profile Seonix extracted and the owner refined: what the business does, audience, tone, language, writing instructions, topics to avoid — plus the ready-to-use prompt block. Read it before writing or rewriting anything for the site.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_site_dna"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoProject id or slug. Optional when the account has one project or the connector URL names it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a safe, idempotent, closed read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds value beyond them by describing the payload contents (including the prebuilt prompt block), which is the main thing an agent needs to know before deciding to read it.

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 compact sentences: the first enumerates returned content, the second states the usage rule. The field list is dense but each item is meaningfully distinct; the instruction is correctly placed last as a call to action.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the profile's components and the prompt block. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only single-parameter tool; only the parameter's fallback behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains project_id and its fallback behavior. The description never references parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level but adds nothing.

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?

It names a specific resource (the brand profile / 'Site DNA') and enumerates exactly what it contains: business description, audience, tone, language, writing instructions, avoided topics, plus a ready-to-use prompt block. No sibling tool returns this artifact, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Read it before writing or rewriting anything for the site" gives a clear trigger condition tied to the agent's workflow. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but none of the siblings plausibly overlap with this resource, so the gap is minor.

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.