Skip to main content
Glama

get_site_health

Read-only

Read-only; changes nothing. The checks of the published site (key scope sites:read): Siteon runs the same rules as check_site over the version that is live, once after each publish and once a week, and keeps the last 10 runs. The answer has checks (newest first) with reason (deploy / weekly), status, checked_at, a summary (errors / warnings / infos, html_total / html_checked) and findings — each finding is only its level, rule and path, never the page's own text. latest is the newest completed run and previous_warnings the one before it, so you can see whether things got worse. Use it to answer "is anything wrong with my site?" without deploying: read a rule's path here, then read that file (read_draft_file, or siteon check on the folder from the CLI) to see the details and the suggested fix. The same rules run before a publish, so preview_draft reports them for a draft.

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": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "get_site_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesSite ID (the id from list_sites, e.g. "my-shop")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantial context beyond them: checks run once after each publish and weekly, the last 10 runs are kept, findings expose only level/rule/path and never page text, and latest/previous_warnings reveal whether things got worse. That is rich operational detail an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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?

The description is dense and each sentence carries useful information about scheduling, return shape, and next steps. It is slightly long and opens with a generic read-only disclaimer before the actual purpose, but it is not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, and it does: checks newest first, reason/status/checked_at, summary counts, findings shape, plus latest and previous_warnings. For a one-parameter read tool, nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single `site` parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds scope context (published site, key scope sites:read) but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline-3 rule for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reads the health checks of the published site, run by Siteon's rules. It explicitly distinguishes published-site checks from draft previews, so an agent can tell it apart from preview_draft or read_draft_file without opening any schema.

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?

It names the exact question the tool answers ("is anything wrong with my site?" without deploying) and lays out the next step: read a rule's path here, then read that file via read_draft_file or `siteon check` for details and fixes. It also clarifies that the same rules run before publish, so preview_draft covers drafts, giving a clear alternative and exclusion.

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.

Resources