get_siteSite settings + version history for one of my sites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | site slug, e.g. my-site |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"site slug, e.g. my-site"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation (retrieving settings and version history). No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, specific permissions) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide. The description does not contradict annotations.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Site settings + version history'). Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy. It is highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose. It does not mention authentication or scoping, but these are typically assumed. The description is sufficiently complete for this level of complexity.
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 (slug is described). The description does not add any extra meaning or constraints for the parameter beyond the schema's 'site slug, e.g. my-site'. Baseline score 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 clearly states it returns site settings and version history for one site. It implicitly uses the 'get' verb, and the resource 'site' is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_site_access or list_versions, but the combination of settings + version history provides enough specificity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that list_sites should be used to enumerate sites, or that get_site_access is for access control. The description is purely declarative without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.