htmldrop-mcp

htmldrop_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all published sites for the authenticated tenant, including each site's slug, ID, and public URL.

Instructions

List every site the authenticated tenant has published. Returns each site's slug, id, and public URL.

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": "htmldrop_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sites`	Yes	Every published site for the authenticated tenant.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.4Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint safely. The description adds valuable context by specifying the 'authenticated tenant' scope and the returned fields (slug, id, public URL), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the purpose and return values without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no inputs.

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 the tool's simplicity, no parameters, and an existing output schema likely listing the response structure, the description is sufficient. It covers the key behavioral aspect (listing every published site) and indicates the return fields, though it could mention pagination or rate limits if applicable.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not need to explain any parameters, and the schema provides full coverage with an empty definition.

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's function with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('site'), and scope ('every site the authenticated tenant has published'). It naturally differentiates from sibling tools htmldrop_publish and htmldrop_delete, which perform write operations.

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 when to use the tool (to view published sites) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, so the agent must infer that this is the read-only counterpart.

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

Deploy Server