multi-account-netlify-mcp

netlify-project-services-reader

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read Netlify projects and forms across one, several, or all configured accounts, with results scoped to the owning account and missing accounts listed under notFoundIn.

Instructions

Select and run one of the following Netlify read operations (read-only) get-project, get-projects, get-forms-for-project

Multi-account (the account argument): get-project: only the account that owns the id answers, and accounts without it are listed under notFoundIn; get-projects: every named account answers; get-forms-for-project: only the account that owns the id answers, and accounts without it are listed under notFoundIn.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "selectSchema": "<selectSchema>"
    },
    "name": "netlify-project-services-reader"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	No	Netlify account to use: one name, several names separated by commas, or "all". Lists and all only work for operations that allow them; changes need one name. Leave out to use the default account. Accounts: none yet.
`selectSchema`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: get-project and get-forms-for-project only resolve on the owning account and surface non-matching accounts under notFoundIn, whereas get-projects queries every named account.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the per-operation account rules follow compactly. The semicolon-separated clauses are dense but purposeful, with no filler sentences.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-behavior burden, and it does explain the notFoundIn outcome for two of the three operations. For a read-only tool whose annotations cover safety, this is nearly complete, though it omits pagination or result-shape hints.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%. The description meaningfully explains the 'account' argument's multi-account resolution semantics, but the nested operation params (siteId, teamSlug, formId, projectNameSearchValue) are left to the schema and not clarified here. Adequate but not a full compensation for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (select and run) and resource (Netlify read operations), then enumerates the three operations: get-project, get-projects, get-forms-for-project. The 'reader' vs 'updater' naming separates it from the sibling netlify-project-services-updater, but the description never explicitly references or contrasts the sibling, keeping it 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It states the tool is read-only and details the multi-account behavior per operation, which is real usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool versus an alternative (e.g., the updater or user-services reader), and no exclusions beyond the read-only framing.

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

Deploy Server