Return the DOM context summary (sections, elements, allowed operations) for a project page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| project_guid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / project_guidAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / project_idRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "project_guid"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a read-only 'Return' operation, but it does not disclose what happens for a null page, whether project_guid must reference an existing project, or if there are any side effects. Basic getter behavior is conveyed, but important behavioral nuances are left unspecified.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the resource, and the payload contents. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool still lacks crucial operational context: what project_guid format is expected, what page values are valid, and whether get_project_context is a prerequisite for apply_dom_ops. At 0% schema description coverage, this gap is significant.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters, but it does not explicitly describe project_guid or page. It only implies a page relationship through 'project page.' The agent has to infer rather than be told what project_guid is and how page selects a context.
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 states a specific operation: 'Return the DOM context summary' for a project page, including what the summary contains (sections, elements, allowed operations). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like apply_dom_ops (which mutates) and list_projects (which lists projects/pages).
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 implies when to use the tool—when you need the DOM context for a project page—but it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or whether it should precede apply_dom_ops. The intended use is reasonably inferable, but no alternative routing is provided.
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 pair a distinct action with a distinct resource and long descriptions make intent clear. Still, `search_domains` already provides exact-domain checks, overlapping with `check_domain`, and the `create_project` vs `create_new_site` vs `create_page` cluster takes careful reading.
The vast majority are snake_case verb_noun: list_projects, create_project, delete_page, get_preview_url, write_asset, query_database, publish_website. The only visible outlier is whoami, but it is standard enough that it does not disrupt predictability.
At 36 tools this is meaningfully heavier than the rubric's 'too many' threshold, even though the scope spans websites, backends, domains, gallery images, and databases. It makes selection harder and a sizeable portion of the surface is niche or lifecycle internal.
The core site lifecycle is well covered: project, htmlmanag, assets, preview/publish, validation, deletion, uploaded images, backend files/logs, database reading, domain search and purchase linking. Workable non-critical gaps exist, e.g. no separate project metadata rename and no direct way to delete database rows or a database outside of deleting the project.