shiply

Set site access control

set_site_access

Idempotent

Protect an owned site (paid plans). mode 'public' (anyone), 'password' (supply password), or 'restricted' (supply allowedEmails and/or allowedDomains — only those can request a login code). Changing any setting signs out existing visitors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes	public = anyone; password = supply password; restricted = supply allowedEmails/allowedDomains
`slug`	Yes	owned site slug to protect
`password`	No	required when mode='password'
`allowedEmails`	No	allowlisted emails when mode='restricted'
`allowedDomains`	No	allowlisted email domains when mode='restricted'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedJun 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / allowedDomains / description

Added value: +"allowlisted email domains when mode='restricted'"

addedInput schema / properties / allowedEmails / description

Added value: +"allowlisted emails when mode='restricted'"

addedInput schema / properties / mode / description

Added value: +"public = anyone; password = supply password; restricted = supply allowedEmails/allowedDomains"

addedInput schema / properties / password / description
```
Added value: +"required when mode='password'"
```
addedInput schema / properties / slug / description
```
Added value: +"owned site slug to protect"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {}
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJun 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: 'Changing any setting signs out existing visitors.' This is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose and constraints, the second explains modes and a side effect. No waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main behaviors (modes, sign-out) and constraints (owned site, paid plans). It lacks details on allowedEmails/allowedDomains interaction, but the schema covers those. For a 5-parameter tool, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, e.g., clarifying the mode options and the sign-out effect. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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's purpose: 'Protect an owned site (paid plans).' It explains the three modes (public, password, restricted) and their effects. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_site_access (read-only) by focusing on setting access control.

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?

The description implies usage context with 'Protect an owned site (paid plans).' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is clear given no other tool sets site access. A minor gap is the lack of explicit prerequisites beyond ownership and plan.

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

All shiply tools Inspect

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.

Resources

Need Help?