site_get_rootRetrieve the absolute root directory path for a specific website by ID, without querying or listing all sites. Use it to resolve a site's filesystem location.
Absolute root directory of a site, without listing every site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Website id. | |
| key | No | Column to read, normally "path". | path |
| table | No | Table to read from, normally "sites". | sites |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1-alpha.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return value is an absolute root directory and that it avoids listing every site, but it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or output format. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words. The scope constraint is front-loaded and the sentence is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only getter with 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It states the returned value and scope, though it stops short of explicit usage routing among the many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, key, and table adequately. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as explaining the key or table defaults, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific resource: the absolute root directory of a site. It distinguishes itself from site_list by saying 'without listing every site', though the verb 'get' is only implied by the tool name rather than stated outright.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as site_get or site_list. The phrase 'without listing every site' hints at a scope distinction, but it does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.