Skip to main content
Glama

WebZum - The Hosting Layer for AI-Generated Web Content

by io.github.suprraz

get_site_status

Read-only

Check the status and generation progress of a site.

Returns detailed progress information including:

  • stage: Current step (initialization, validation, research, strategy, generation, assembly, completion)

  • overallProgress: Total progress 0-100 across all stages (use this for progress bars)

  • stageProgress: Progress within current stage 0-100

  • message: Human-readable status message

  • isComplete: Boolean - stop polling when true

Use the versionId returned from create_site for real-time progress polling. Poll every 5-10 seconds while isComplete is false.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionIdNoThe versionId returned from create_site (preferred for progress tracking)
businessIdNoThe businessId returned from create_site (fallback, less detailed)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by detailing the returned fields, progress semantics, and polling behavior. It specifies that polling should stop when isComplete is true, and indicates that versionId provides more detail than businessId, adding behavioral context not available from 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 well-structured with a clear purpose line and bulleted return fields. It is informative yet not excessively verbose. Slight redundancy in listing fields could be trimmed, but overall it earns its place.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return fields, progress stages, and polling frequency. It covers the polling interval, termination condition, and parameter preference, providing a complete picture for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters, the description adds significant semantic value: versionId is 'preferred for progress tracking' while businessId is a 'fallback, less detailed'. This guidance helps the agent choose the correct parameter, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 the tool 'Check the status and generation progress of a site', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_site and clone_site by focusing on status polling rather than creation or mutation.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use the versionId returned from create_site for real-time progress polling' and 'Poll every 5-10 seconds while isComplete is false.' This clearly instructs when and how to use the tool, and implies it is the polling companion to create_site.

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