Lists the websites and domains available to your Plausible Analytics API key.
Returns the list of sites/domains accessible by the configured Plausible API key.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_sites"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does indicate a read operation through 'Returns' and mentions API key authentication, but it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or return structure. This is minimally sufficient for a simple list 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 a single clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse.
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?
For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, this description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns and the underlying access context. The sibling tools suggest complementary analytics functions, reinforcing the purpose.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds context about the configured API key, which clarifies the data source. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and this description does not detract from that.
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 clearly states the tool returns a list of sites/domains accessible via the API key. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'sites/domains' make it distinct from the sibling tools query_stats and get_realtime_visitors, which focus on analytics data.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or expected workflow. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.