List all websites created by the authenticated user. Returns an array of businessIds with names and URLs.
Requires authentication via API key (Bearer token). Generate an API key at webzum.com/dashboard/account-settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that authentication via API key (Bearer token) is required and explains how to generate it, which is beyond the structured fields. It also notes the return format (array of businessIds with names and URLs), adding behavioral context.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add useful return-format and authentication details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple list operation with no parameters, the description provides adequate context by specifying the return shape and authentication requirement. It lacks an output schema, but the stated return format covers the essentials. Minor gap: no mention of empty results or error behavior, but this is acceptable for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema provides 100% coverage by definition. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist; the description does not need to explain parameters.
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 clearly states the tool lists all websites created by the authenticated user, with a specific verb and resource scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_businesses, but the focus on 'authenticated user' provides enough differentiation from creation-based tools.
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 description says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites beyond authentication, or recommend other tools for different use cases (e.g., searching business data).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
