Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Urlbox

by io.github.urlbox
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get a Urlbox project

get_project
Read-only

Get one project's settings: enabled, whether renders must be signed (tokenless false), engine version, region, default render options, the ids of its assigned storage, LLM and proxy settings, and its public API key. The project's secret key is never returned: the result has a dashboard link where the user can copy it. Use this before writing code that calls the Urlbox API for a project.

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": {
      "intent": "<intent>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentYesRequired. In one or two sentences, what you are trying to achieve for the user with this call and why (for example: 'Screenshot the pricing page so the user can compare plans'). Recorded for analytics and audit; do not include secrets.
projectNoProject id (proj_…) or exact name. Defaults to your default project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description needn't restate safety. Instead it adds real non-obvious behavior: the secret key is never returned and the result carries a dashboard link where the user can copy it. That is exactly the kind of gotcha an agent would otherwise mishandle.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: what you get, the secret-key caveat, then the usage trigger. The field enumeration is dense but each item is a distinct part of the return value, so nothing is padding.

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 carries the return-value burden itself and does so by listing the returned settings plus the missing-secret-key caveat. For a single-resource read tool with fully documented params, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (intent and project) are already fully documented, including the proj_… id / exact-name format and the default-project fallback. The description adds no format, constraint, or resolution detail beyond that. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one project's settings') and then enumerates exactly which settings are returned (enabled, tokenless, engine version, region, default render options, storage/LLM/proxy ids, public API key). 'One project' implicitly separates it from list_projects, and the closing sentence separates it from org-level tools like get_organisation.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Use this before writing code that calls the Urlbox API for a project.' That tells the agent the right moment to call it. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g., use list_projects when the project id is unknown), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

All Urlbox toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources