list_sitesFetch the sites linked to your account to choose a publish destination for static files.
Lists the sites on this account, so a publish can go to one of them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sites | Yes | Every site on this account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "sites": {
+ "description": "Every site on this account.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "description": "What it is called, or null when it has no name.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "siteId": {
+ "description": "Identifier of the site.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "subdomain": {
+ "description": "Its subdomain, which is what `site` accepts.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Its live URL.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "siteId",
+ "subdomain",
+ "url",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "sites"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint that results are limited to 'this account', but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior; with annotations carrying the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and ending with the motivating use case. No filler 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?
For a zero-argument read-only lister with an output schema that documents the return shape, the description supplies scope and purpose adequately. Only minor gaps remain (ordering/pagination, what to do with the returned identifiers), which the output schema largely mitigates.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully described.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the sites') plus scope ('on this account'), and hints at the downstream purpose ('so a publish can go to one of them'). It is clearly distinguishable from the mutation siblings (delete_site, publish_*) without naming them, so it stops just short of a 5.
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 phrase 'so a publish can go to one of them' implies the workflow context — call this before publishing to obtain a valid target — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no sibling is named as an alternative or prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.