Skip to main content
Glama

WebZum - The Hosting Layer for AI-Generated Web Content

by io.github.suprraz

create_site

Destructive

Create a new website for a business. Pass a business candidate object from search_businesses to generate a website.

Requires authentication via API key (Bearer token). Generate an API key at webzum.com/dashboard/account-settings.

The site generation happens in the background. Use get_site_status to check progress.

Returns the businessId which can be used to access the site at /build/{businessId}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
candidateYesA BusinessCandidate object from search_businesses results (use the _raw array)
extraInfoNoOptional additional metadata to include with the registration

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: requires API key authentication, site generation is background, and returns businessId for access. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint, so no contradiction.

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?

Six short, purposeful sentences. Each sentence adds necessary information (purpose, input, auth, background, output). Slightly longer than minimal but still concise and well-structured.

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?

Covers prerequisite (search_businesses), auth, background async behavior, status checking, and return value. Missing error handling or limits, but sufficient for a creation tool with no output 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both params have descriptions. The description reinforces that candidate comes from search_businesses but doesn't add new syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Create a new website for a business' with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the input from search_businesses, making the purpose distinct from siblings like clone_site or create_lead_gen_site.

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?

It gives clear usage context: pass a business candidate from search_businesses and check progress via get_site_status. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow is clear.

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

All WebZum - The Hosting Layer for AI-Generated Web Content 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: cloning, creating, hosting, editing, and regenerating different site parts. The main ambiguity is between create_lead_gen_site and generate_geo_page, which both create lead-gen pages but differ in targeting and workflow; however, their descriptions clarify the use cases sufficiently.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (e.g., clone_site, host_file, update_site_html). Minor inconsistencies exist: create vs. generate for similar actions (create_site vs. generate_geo_page) and get vs. list for retrieval (get_hosted_files vs. list_user_sites), but these are predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 17 tools, the count is slightly heavy for a hosting service, but the variety of operations (creation, cloning, file hosting, editing, regeneration, status, search) justifies most of them. A few tools (e.g., four regenerate_* tools) could potentially be consolidated, but the scope still feels reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle: create, clone, host, list, edit, update, and regenerate site components. Notable gaps include no delete operation for sites or files and no explicit version rollback, but agents can work around these by using host_file to overwrite and relying on site status for progress.

Resources