Hostsmith MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.5.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: site CRUD, two deployment methods for different file types, deployment finalization, account info, and listings for domains and sites. No overlap in functionality, and the descriptions clearly differentiate deploy_create_upload (binary/large files) from deploy_files (inline text).
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_site, delete_site, get_account, etc.) with a clear deploy_ prefix for deployment operations. All names are snake_case and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a hosting server. It covers site management, deployment workflows, account info, and domain listing without being excessive or sparse.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers core workflows (create, deploy, delete, list) but lacks update operations for sites and domains. There is no tool to modify site configuration or manage domain records beyond listing, which are notable gaps.
Average 4.7/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 16, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds valuable details: queries all partitions by default, merges results, and users can narrow with partition or shared. No contradictions.
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 with no wasted words. Purpose and usage are front-loaded. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with two optional parameters; description covers domain types, default behavior, and reference to create_site. Annotations support safety. Complete for the given context.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds context by explaining default behavior and how to use partition and shared parameters to narrow results. Baseline 3 is exceeded due to added value.
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 domains for hosting sites, distinguishing between shared and custom domains. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like create_site.
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?
Explicitly advises using this tool to select a domain before create_site, and explains default behavior and parameter use for narrowing results. Lacks mention of alternatives but still provides clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds output fields and partition query behavior (default merge, optional filter), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Very concise, four sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value. Excellent structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, output content, usage context, partition behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. No missing information for a simple list tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds natural language about default merging and optional partition, enhancing understanding of the parameter's effect.
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?
Clearly states it lists Hostsmith sites with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning feed siteId into other tools and calls it the source of truth.
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?
Explicitly says to call before any create/deploy/delete to resolve site references, providing clear context. Does not explicitly state when not to use but implies strong contextual need.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the site URL becomes unreachable immediately, content cannot be recovered, and the confirm parameter must be true for the deletion to proceed. It also explains that omitting confirm returns an error.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the key purpose and a strong warning. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. No wasted words.
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 output schema, the description could mention what the response looks like on success or error. However, the behavioral information is well-covered. For a 3-parameter tool with low complexity, the description is mostly complete, lacking only a note about return values.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the confirm parameter's safety purpose and that partition can be omitted for the home partition. It reinforces the confirm:true requirement, which is critical for safe usage.
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 it permanently deletes a Hostsmith site and all deployed files, specifying the verb 'delete', the resource 'site', and the scope 'all deployed files'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_site and get_site by being the only destructive deletion tool.
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 explicitly warns that this is destructive and should only be called after explicit user confirmation. It also explains the confirm parameter safeguard. However, it does not mention specific alternatives (e.g., what to use if only temporary removal is needed), though in the tool's context the only appropriate alternative is not using the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description details the protocol, return values, required preconditions (site must exist), and overwriting behavior, adding context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is excessively long, containing multi-step protocols, code examples, and recovery instructions. While well-structured, it is not concise; many sentences could be external documentation, making it less effective as a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the lack of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage, prerequisites, edge cases, error recovery, and even sandbox-specific configurations, making it contextually complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to structure `files` with `fileName` and `fileSize`, and by showing usage in a template, providing practical parameter semantics beyond schema definitions.
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 starts a direct-to-S3 upload for binary or large files, distinguishes it from `deploy_files` which handles inline content with payload caps, and specifies the resource and action.
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool (binaries, large files) versus alternatives (`deploy_files`), provides conditions for zipping files, and includes anti-patterns and a recovery escalation order, offering complete usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses destructive nature (mutation) as per annotation, adds return value (live site URL), and explains auth re-validation and security implications. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise single paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Could be slightly more structured but remains efficient and informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all necessary aspects: return value, auth, partition parameter, and completions logic. No output schema, but return value is described. Complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context beyond schema, such as the relationship between versionId and start response, and that single-part uploads need no completion entry.
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?
Description clearly states it commits a deploy started with deploy_create_upload, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the starting tool and noting that single-part uploads need no completions.
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?
Provides clear instructions on parameters (versionId, completions) and when to omit completions. Explains auth requirements but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about domain status checks, subdomain rules, and partition matching. It does not contradict annotations. Minor gap: doesn't elaborate on whether creation is irreversible, but the annotation already flags destructive nature.
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 well-structured with clear paragraphs for purpose, domain, and subdomain rules. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slightly lengthy due to necessary complexity, but no wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, domain/subdomain constraints, partition matching), the description covers all necessary aspects. It references sibling tools for the full workflow and hints at return values despite the absence of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant business logic beyond schema: domain must be from list_domains, partition must match domain, subdomain 'www' only valid when enableApexDomain is true. This enriches understanding beyond the basic schema descriptions.
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 creates a new Hostsmith site and returns its siteId, full URL, and configuration. It uses specific verbs (create) and resource (site), and distinguishes from sibling tools like deploy_files by specifying post-creation steps.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'when the user wants to publish or host new content and no suitable site already exists.' Also provides alternatives: deploy_files for small text, deploy_create_upload + deploy_finalize for large files. Prerequisites like list_domains are clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context by detailing the return information (URL, status, config) and the partition behavior. This is sufficient and adds value beyond annotations.
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 efficient sentences. First sentence states purpose and output. Second provides usage guidance and partition detail. No wasted words, front-loaded with critical info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (URL, status, configuration). It covers partition nuance and refers to sibling tools. Complete for a simple read-only tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the partition default behavior and referencing that siteId comes from list_sites or create_site, which aids in parameter understanding 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 the verb ('Get full details'), the resource ('a specific Hostsmith site by ID'), and lists the specific outputs (public URL, deployment status, configuration). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to use it (after list_sites or deploy operations).
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?
Explicitly tells when to use: after `list_sites` to inspect a single site, or after `deploy_files`/`deploy_finalize` to confirm the site is live and get the URL. Also explains partition default behavior and when to override, referencing sibling tool output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations have destructiveHint=true; description confirms overwrite behavior and adds 'confirm with user'. No contradictions. Also discloses that tool returns version and status, and does not write to disk.
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?
Well-structured with two clear paragraphs. First paragraph covers usage and result; second covers anti-pattern. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers prerequisites, output (version/status), post-action (get_site for URL), destructive behavior, and anti-patterns. No output schema but description compensates.
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?
Schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds extra guidance: for files array, suggests index.html for HTML sites and clarifies single file use; for partition, explains default behavior.
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?
Clearly states verb 'publish' and resource 'file contents to a Hostsmith site'. Distinguishes from sibling `deploy_create_upload` by explicitly excluding binaries. Also sets context: 'without writing to disk' and 'when you have just generated content'.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: after generating content and user wants it live. Prerequisites: site must exist (use create_site). Warning about overwriting with confirmation. Anti-pattern section clearly says when NOT to use and directs to `deploy_create_upload` for binaries, including escalation path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral detail: it confirms no modification, lists returned data fields, and notes usage is summed across partitions, exceeding annotation coverage.
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, no wasted words. First sentence lists fields returned, second gives use case. Structure is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, description thoroughly explains return fields and provides usage context. With zero parameters and no contradictions, the description is fully adequate for agent decision-making.
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?
No parameters defined, so schema provides full coverage (100%). Description does not need to add parameter details, earning baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 retrieves the user's account with specific fields (org details, home partition, subscription plan, usage), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_site and delete_site by being a read-only information endpoint.
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?
Explicitly advises when to use: 'to check how much headroom the user has before creating new sites or to confirm plan-tier features,' providing clear guidance for the AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hostsmith/mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hostsmith/mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hostsmith/mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hostsmith/mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/hostsmith/mcp-server'

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