Report provable problems for a project page (broken images/links, missing files, save/preview status). Fail-open.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two valuable behavioral facts: only provable problems are reported, and the tool fails open, meaning absence of reported problems should not be treated as absolute proof of correctness. The word 'Report' also sufficiently suggests a non-mutating operation.
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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, uses a parenthetical for concrete examples, and adds a meaningful fail-open behavior. Every word earns its place.
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?
Because an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the general purpose, the class of problems, and a key failure behavior. The main contextual gap is the ambiguous optional `page` parameter, but that is already captured under parameter_semantics.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond mentioning a generic 'project page.' It doesn't say how to pass or set `page`, what `null` means for `page`, or why `project_guid` is needed. The schema names are only marginally self-explanatory, so this is a clear missing piece.
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 and resource: it reports provable problems for a project page, and it lists concrete problem categories such as broken images/links, missing files, and save/preview status. It is clear about the core intent, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like check_domain or check_upload_link, which also involve detecting link-related issues.
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?
When to use the tool is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer it should call this when checking a project page for health or correctness issues. The description does not provide clear exclusions or alternatives such as 'use check_domain for DNS issues' or 'use this before publish_website.'
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.