Skip to main content
Glama
kapilduraphe

Webflow MCP Server

by kapilduraphe
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_site retrieves detailed information for a specific site by ID, while get_sites lists all accessible sites. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on whether it needs a single site's details or a list of sites.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_site and get_sites), using the same verb 'get' and singular/plural forms of 'site' to indicate scope. This predictable naming makes the tool set easy to understand and use.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels severely under-scoped for a Webflow integration, which typically involves managing sites, collections, items, and other resources. This limited set will likely cause agents to hit dead ends when trying to perform common operations like creating or updating sites.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is incomplete for Webflow's domain, covering only read operations (get) for sites. It lacks essential CRUD operations such as create_site, update_site, delete_site, and tools for managing collections, items, or other Webflow resources, creating significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirements, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'accessible' entails (e.g., permissions, workspace scoping). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

    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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint (authentication). It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. Every part of the sentence earns its place by adding value.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and authentication context but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of the list), error cases, or limitations. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more behavioral context to be fully complete for an AI agent.

    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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion about inputs.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'list of all Webflow sites', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_site' by indicating it returns a list rather than a single site, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. The description is not tautological and provides meaningful context about what the tool does.

    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 by specifying 'accessible to the authenticated user', suggesting it should be used when needing all sites the user can access. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. the sibling 'get_site' or other alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond authentication. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a retrieval operation, which implies read-only behavior, but does not disclose other traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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?

    The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to understand quickly.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with one parameter), 100% schema coverage, but no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks behavioral details like response format or error handling, which are important for a tool with no structured output information.

    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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'siteId' documented as 'The unique identifier of the Webflow site'. The description adds value by specifying that the tool retrieves information 'by ID', reinforcing the parameter's purpose, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already covers.

    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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific Webflow site by ID', with specific details like workspace, creation date, display name, and publishing details. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_sites' by specifying retrieval for a single site rather than multiple sites.

    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 implies usage when detailed information for a specific site is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_sites' or other alternatives. It provides clear context for retrieving site details by ID, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

    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

webflow-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

webflow-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/kapilduraphe/webflow-mcp-server'

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