redreplier

List Monitored Websites

list_websites

Read-only

List all monitored websites with their keyword statuses and promote pending keywords to active for monitoring.

Instructions

List every website this account monitors, each with its keywords (id, value, status: PENDING, ACTIVE, DISABLED, SUSPENDED). Call this first: most other tools need a websiteId or keywordId from it. Reading also promotes any PENDING keyword that fits the plan's free headroom to ACTIVE, without ever charging. Use get_website instead when you already hold a websiteId and want one record. Only ACTIVE keywords match new mentions, so a long PENDING list explains a quiet inbox. Scope is the account behind the API token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	Array of monitored websites, each with its ID, URL, name, description, and keywords with their statuses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, implying no state changes, but the description states that reading 'promotes any PENDING keyword that fits the plan's free headroom to ACTIVE'. This is a direct contradiction, as promotion modifies state.

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 mostly concise but includes explanatory notes about promotion and 'quiet inbox' that, while informative, go slightly beyond the core purpose. Still well-structured and not overly verbose.

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?

Given no parameters and a clear output description (websites with keywords and statuses), the tool is adequately described. Some details about output structure or pagination are absent, but not critical for basic usage.

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 schema has no properties, and the description mentions no parameters. Since schema coverage is 100% (empty), the baseline of 3 applies; there is no parameter info to add.

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 tool lists monitored websites with their keywords and statuses, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_website. This provides a precise purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Call this first' and explains that most other tools need a websiteId or keywordId from it. It also advises using get_website when holding an ID, offering clear selection guidance.

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