Skip to main content
Glama
webflow

Webflow

Official
by webflow

List Registered Scripts

site_registered_scripts_list

Retrieve all registered scripts for a Webflow site to manage and apply custom code across pages.

Instructions

List all registered scripts for a site. To apply a script to a site or page, first register it via the Register Script endpoints, then apply it using the relevant Site or Page endpoints.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idYesUnique identifier for the site.

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that lists registered scripts for a site by calling the Webflow API's scripts.list method and formatting the response.
    async ({ site_id }) => {
      try {
        const response = await getClient().scripts.list(
          site_id,
          requestOptions
        );
        return formatResponse(response);
      } catch (error) {
        return formatErrorResponse(error);
      }
    }
  • Zod input schema defining the required 'site_id' parameter.
    inputSchema: z.object({
      site_id: z.string().describe("Unique identifier for the site."),
    }),
  • Registration of the 'site_registered_scripts_list' tool with MCP server, specifying title, description, input schema, and handler.
    server.registerTool(
      "site_registered_scripts_list",
      {
        title: "List Registered Scripts",
        description:
          "List all registered scripts for a site. To apply a script to a site or page, first register it via the Register Script endpoints, then apply it using the relevant Site or Page endpoints.",
        inputSchema: z.object({
          site_id: z.string().describe("Unique identifier for the site."),
        }),
      },
      async ({ site_id }) => {
        try {
          const response = await getClient().scripts.list(
            site_id,
            requestOptions
          );
          return formatResponse(response);
        } catch (error) {
          return formatErrorResponse(error);
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('List'), it doesn't specify whether it returns all scripts or is paginated, what the output format looks like, or any authentication or rate limit requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides workflow context. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with critical information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the lack of annotations and the presence of sibling tools with similar names (e.g., 'site_applied_scripts_list'), it should provide more differentiation and output details to be fully 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'site_id' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('registered scripts for a site'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site_applied_scripts_list' or 'delete_all_site_scripts', which would require more specific scope clarification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implied usage context by mentioning that scripts must be registered first before applying them, which helps understand the workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'site_applied_scripts_list' or other script-related tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/webflow/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server