pull_siteDownload the current files of a site you own (or created via a platform connection) so you can edit and republish to the same slug with publish_site. Static sites return editable source; framework/SSR sites return the built bundle (.shiply/bundle/*), not original source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | site slug to pull files for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds detail beyond the idempotentHint annotation by specifying the return format (editable source vs. built bundle) and noting the tool works for sites owned or created via platform connections. No contradiction with 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every part adds value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.
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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose and distinguishes behavior by site type. It could mention error conditions or file structure specifics, but it is largely complete.
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 has one parameter 'slug' with 100% schema coverage. The description adds context that the site must be owned or created via a platform connection, which is not in the schema description, thus adding meaningful guidance.
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 uses a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('a site's current files'), clearly stating the action. It also distinguishes behavior between static sites (editable source) and framework/SSR sites (built bundle), differentiating from any sibling tools that involve site management.
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 provides context for when to use: after pulling, you can edit and republish with publish_site. It implicitly guides usage but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. Given no direct sibling competitor, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.