Get information about a published website including its title, view count, size, expiry date, and whether it has been claimed. No authentication required — this is public information. Use this to check if a site is still live, see how many views it has gotten, or check when it expires.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The slug of the site to check (e.g. "hello-world-k3m"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that 'No authentication required — this is public information,' which is a meaningful behavioral trait absent from annotations (none provided). It also specifies the tool is for published websites. However, it does not address error behavior (e.g., non-existent slug) or rate limits, but for a read-only info tool the disclosure is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences totaling about 40 words. Front-loaded with the core function, then adds usage guidance. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema). The description lists the specific data fields returned and provides common use cases, making it sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it. The response format isn't detailed, but the listed fields effectively serve as the return contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description and example for the lone parameter 'slug'. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'published website' with a list of returned fields (title, view count, size, expiry date, claimed). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (delete_website, publish_website, update_website) which are all mutations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence explicitly states three use cases: 'check if a site is still live, see how many views it has gotten, or check when it expires.' This provides clear context for when to invoke. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but siblings are clearly write operations, implying this is the read-only check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct lifecycle action: publish creates, get reads status, update modifies, delete removes. No overlap in purpose, and descriptions reinforce the boundaries.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: publish_website, get_website_status, update_website, delete_website. The verbs and nouns are uniform and predictable.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the core website lifecycle. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels appropriate for the service's purpose.
The tool surface covers full CRUD: publish (create), get (read), update, delete. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain of publishing and managing simple websites.