Skip to main content
Glama

manus_website_list_checkpoints

List all checkpoints for a website (newest first) and identify the live checkpoint by matching published_version_id with data[].version_id.

Instructions

List all checkpoints of a website (newest first). Match published_version_id against data[].version_id to find the live checkpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idNo
website_idNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for manus_website_list_checkpoints, decorated with @manus_tool. It calls the Manus API endpoint /v2/website.listCheckpoints via GET, passing the query params and returning WebsiteListCheckpointsResponse.
    @manus_tool(
        name="manus_website_list_checkpoints",
        description=(
            "List all checkpoints of a website (newest first). Match published_version_id against "
            "data[].version_id to find the live checkpoint."
        ),
        input_schema=WebsiteListCheckpointsQuery,
        output_schema=WebsiteListCheckpointsResponse,
    )
    async def website_list_checkpoints(
        q: WebsiteListCheckpointsQuery, ctx: ToolCtx
    ) -> WebsiteListCheckpointsResponse:
        return await ctx.client.call(
            "GET",
            "/v2/website.listCheckpoints",
            params=q.model_dump(exclude_none=True),
            response_model=WebsiteListCheckpointsResponse,
            rate_limit_key="website.listCheckpoints",
        )
  • Input schema: extends _WebsiteTarget (requires exactly one of task_id or website_id). Validates the query parameters for listing website checkpoints.
    class WebsiteListCheckpointsQuery(_WebsiteTarget):
        pass
  • Output schema: contains website_id, a list of Checkpoint objects, and optional published_version_id to identify the live checkpoint.
    class WebsiteListCheckpointsResponse(ResponseEnvelope):
        website_id: str
        data: list[Checkpoint] = []
        published_version_id: str | None = None
  • Schema for individual checkpoint records returned in the response data array.
    class Checkpoint(ManusModel):
        model_config = ConfigDict(extra="allow")
        version_id: str
        message: str | None = None
        status: CheckpointStatus | None = None
        created_at: UnixSeconds | None = None
  • The @manus_tool decorator registers the handler in _REGISTRY when the module is imported (via load_all_tool_modules).
    def wrap(
        handler: Callable[[TIn, ToolCtx], Awaitable[TOut]],
    ) -> Callable[[TIn, ToolCtx], Awaitable[TOut]]:
        if name in _REGISTRY:
            raise RuntimeError(f"Duplicate tool name: {name}")
        _REGISTRY[name] = ToolDef(
            name=name,
            description=description,
            input_schema=input_schema,
            output_schema=output_schema,
            handler=handler,
            rate_limit_key=rate_limit_key,
        )
        return handler
    
    return wrap
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only states 'list' (read operation) and hints at version matching, but says nothing about side effects, authorization, rate limits, or result 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 extremely concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words, and front-loaded with the core action and ordering.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple list tool, the description gives ordering and a usage hint. However, it misses details about pagination, limits, response structure (no output schema), and parameter purposes, leaving gaps for the agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the two parameters (task_id, website_id). It only mentions 'of a website' but does not map to the parameter. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 checkpoints of a website' with ordering 'newest first'. The verb 'List' and resource 'checkpoints' are specific, and the tool name distinguishes it from siblings like website_publish or website_status.

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?

The description implies usage for listing checkpoints but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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/aruxojuyu665/Manus-MCP'

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