Webflow MCP Server

sites_list

Retrieve all sites accessible to the authenticated user, including site ID, name, and last published date.

Instructions

List all sites accessible to the authenticated user. Returns basic site information including site ID, name, and last published date.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sites_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return structure (site ID, name, last published date) and implies read-only behavior via 'List'. However, it omits details like pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements beyond 'authenticated user', leaving some gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'List'. Every word contributes: scope ('accessible to the authenticated user') and return fields. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the operation, scope, and return fields. It doesn't mention pagination or counts, but these are not critical for a simple list operation. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The description adds no parameter syntax (none exist) but does clarify the return content, which is helpful. There is no missing parameter documentation.

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 'List all sites accessible to the authenticated user'—a specific verb and resource with explicit scope. This distinguishes it from sibling sites_get (which likely retrieves a single site) and sites_publish. The return fields are also listed, reinforcing purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context: use this tool to enumerate all sites for the authenticated user. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is sufficiently clear given sibling tools like sites_get. No misleading guidance is present.

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