Skip to main content
Glama

getSite

Retrieve detailed information about a specific Netlify site using its ID or name for site management and monitoring.

Instructions

Get details of a specific site

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteIdYesID or name of the site to retrieve

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'getSite' tool: validates input, calls Netlify API to retrieve site details by siteId, handles errors like 404, and returns formatted response.
    case 'getSite': {
      const args = request.params.arguments as unknown as GetSiteArgs;
      if (!args?.siteId) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InvalidParams,
          'Missing required parameter: siteId'
        );
      }
      try {
        const response = await this.axiosInstance.get(`/sites/${args.siteId}`);
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: JSON.stringify({
                success: true,
                site: response.data,
              }, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        if (axios.isAxiosError(error)) {
          if (error.response?.status === 404) {
            throw new McpError(
              ErrorCode.InvalidParams,
              `Site not found: ${args.siteId}`
            );
          }
          throw new McpError(
            ErrorCode.InternalError,
            `Failed to get site: ${this.formatNetlifyError(error)}`
          );
        }
        throw error;
      }
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the input arguments for the getSite tool (siteId: string).
    interface GetSiteArgs {
      siteId: string;
    }
  • src/index.ts:167-180 (registration)
    Registration of the 'getSite' tool in the ListTools response, specifying name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'getSite',
      description: 'Get details of a specific site',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          siteId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ID or name of the site to retrieve',
          },
        },
        required: ['siteId'],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid site IDs), or what 'details' includes (e.g., fields returned). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get details of a specific site'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, which is crucial since there's no output schema. For a read operation with no annotations, it should at least hint at the response structure or key fields to make it fully usable by an agent.

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 'siteId' parameter clearly documented as 'ID or name of the site to retrieve'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('specific site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listSites' (which retrieves multiple sites vs. a single site), but the specificity of 'specific site' implies a single-item retrieval. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'getSite' vs. 'listSites' (e.g., for a single known site vs. browsing all sites) or prerequisites like needing a site ID. There's no explicit or implied context for usage beyond the basic purpose.

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/MCERQUA/netlify-mcp'

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