Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hostwares-mcp

hostwares-mcp

by Hostwares
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_site_status

Retrieve the status of a site by its name or ID to verify if it is running, stopped, or encountering issues.

Instructions

Get status of a site

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_site_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesSite name or ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, or what the response format is. Only the basic action is stated.

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 extremely concise at four words, front-loaded with the key action. However, it may be too terse, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema, the complex set of sibling tools, and only one parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'status' entails (e.g., health, uptime, error state) or what the caller receives.

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 100% with parameter description 'Site name or ID'. The description adds nothing beyond that, so 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get status') and the resource ('a site'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like deploy_site, restart_site, etc., which are operations rather than read-only status checks.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_sites or get_deployment_logs. The description is silent on context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools