Netlify MCP Server

Official

by netlify

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are clearly organized by resource type (deploy, extension, project, team, user) and operation type (read vs. update), which minimizes ambiguity. However, the 'netlify-coding-rules' tool stands out as a special-purpose utility that doesn't fit neatly into this resource-based categorization, creating a minor point of potential confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
The naming follows a highly consistent pattern: 'netlify-[resource]-services-[operation]' for eight of the nine tools, with clear differentiation between 'reader' and 'updater' operations. The single outlier ('netlify-coding-rules') still maintains the 'netlify-' prefix, preserving overall naming coherence.
Tool Count4/5
Nine tools is a reasonable number for a Netlify API server, covering multiple resource types and both read/write operations. It's slightly lean for comprehensive coverage of a platform like Netlify, but the scope appears well-defined around core deployment, project, and team management functions.
Completeness3/5
The server provides good read coverage for key resources (deploys, extensions, projects, teams, users) and write operations for some areas (deployments, extensions, projects). However, there are notable gaps: no update operations for teams or users, and missing common Netlify operations like site creation, function management, or build triggers that would be expected in a complete surface.
Average 2.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 5 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 79 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 ISC 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?
The annotation provides readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a write operation. The description adds minimal context by calling it a 'write operation' and specifying 'deploy-site,' but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like what gets deployed, whether this creates or updates deployments, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. With annotations covering only the read/write aspect, the description adds little value beyond what's already structured.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but not front-loaded with essential information. It wastes space on vague phrasing like 'Select and run one of the following Netlify write operations' instead of immediately stating the tool's purpose. While brief, it doesn't efficiently communicate value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with 1 parameter (though nested with multiple sub-parameters), no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'deploy-site' actually means operationally, or provide enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. However, the description provides no information about parameters whatsoever - it doesn't mention deployDirectory, siteId, or any other inputs. The baseline is 3 because with 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Select and run one of the following Netlify write operations deploy-site' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'netlify-deploy-services-updater' as 'deploy-site' without specifying what the operation actually does. It doesn't clearly state the verb+resource combination (e.g., 'deploy code to a Netlify site') or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'netlify-project-services-updater'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description mentions 'one of the following Netlify write operations,' it doesn't specify what those other operations might be or when to choose this specific 'deploy-site' operation. There's no context about prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming write operations, which aligns with 'write operations' in the description. The description lists the specific operations available, providing some context about what types of mutations are possible. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise as a single sentence listing operations, but it's not well-structured for clarity. It front-loads the tool's purpose weakly and could be more effectively organized to help an agent understand the tool's scope. While not verbose, it lacks the strategic structure that would make it more helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of this multi-operation tool with 6 distinct operations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It should explain the tool's role as a multi-operation selector, provide guidance on choosing among operations, and offer at least high-level parameter guidance. The current description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (a complex nested object with multiple operations), the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain the 'selectSchema' parameter structure, the meaning of different operations, or how to format parameters for each operation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely lists operation names without explaining what the tool actually does. It states 'Select and run one of the following Netlify write operations' followed by a list, which is tautological with the tool name 'updater' and doesn't provide specific verb+resource clarity. It fails to distinguish this multi-operation tool from its sibling updater tools like 'netlify-deploy-services-updater' or 'netlify-extension-services-updater'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for choosing among the listed operations, or when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like 'netlify-project-services-reader'. It simply lists operations without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description reinforces with '(read-only)'. The description adds minimal context about being a 'read operation' but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide - no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or what specific user data is returned. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds little value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but inefficiently structured - it's a single run-on sentence that awkwardly combines tool selection guidance with operation naming. While concise, it's not well-structured or front-loaded with the most critical information about what the tool actually does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent simplicity (fixed operation with no parameters) and the presence of readOnlyHint annotation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'get-user' retrieves, what authentication is needed, or what the response contains. With no output schema and minimal description, an agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the tool effectively has 0 meaningful parameters for the agent - the only parameter is a nested object with a fixed 'operation' value of 'get-user'. The description doesn't explain what 'get-user' means or what user information is retrieved. Since there are no actual user-facing parameters to document, baseline 3 is appropriate, though the description could better explain the operation's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Select and run one of the following Netlify read operations (read-only) get-user', which is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'netlify-user-services-reader' as 'read operations get-user'. It doesn't specify what 'get-user' actually does (retrieve user profile, account details, etc.) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'netlify-team-services-reader' or 'netlify-project-services-reader'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance - it mentions 'read operations' and 'read-only', but offers no explicit when-to-use criteria, no comparison to alternatives, and no context about when this tool is appropriate versus sibling tools. It doesn't explain what user information is retrieved or when to use this versus team or project services.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the description's 'write operations' claim, so no contradiction exists. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying this is a selector/dispatcher for two specific operations, but doesn't disclose important traits like whether operations are reversible, have side effects, require specific permissions, or have rate limits. With annotations covering only the read/write aspect, the description provides some but insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence) but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the dispatcher concept but wastes space listing operation names without explaining their purposes. The sentence could be more informative by explaining why this dispatcher exists or what 'write operations' entail. While concise, it doesn't maximize information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (write operations) with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the two operations do, their effects, or what they return. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema's parameter names to understand the operations. For a tool that dispatches to potentially destructive operations, more context about behavior and outcomes is needed.
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 description doesn't mention parameters at all, but the input schema has only one parameter (selectSchema) with 0% description coverage. Since this is essentially a dispatcher with a single selector parameter, the lack of parameter explanation in the description is less critical. The description does clarify that users must 'select and run one of the following' operations, which implicitly explains the parameter's purpose. For a single-parameter dispatcher tool, this is reasonably adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Select and run one of the following Netlify write operations' which indicates it's a selector/dispatcher tool rather than performing a specific operation itself. However, it's vague about what 'write operations' means and doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'netlify-extension-services-reader' or other updaters. The description restates the tool name's concept of 'updater' without adding specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'write operations' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling tools. There's no indication of what scenarios require this dispatcher approach versus using individual operation tools directly, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints. The agent must infer usage from the operation names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states '(read-only)' which aligns with the readOnlyHint: true annotation, providing no contradiction. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - it doesn't explain what data is returned, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description simply lists operation names without behavioral details.
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 appropriately concise with a single sentence that efficiently lists the available operations. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, though it could benefit from slightly more structure to separate the two operation descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and no behavioral annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data the operations return, what 'extensions' are in Netlify's context, or provide enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (selectSchema), the description provides no parameter semantics. It mentions operation names but doesn't explain what parameters each operation requires or their purposes. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer parameter usage from the schema structure alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool allows selecting and running Netlify read operations, which provides a general purpose (read-only operations on extensions). However, it's vague about what 'extensions' are and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling read tools like netlify-project-services-reader or netlify-team-services-reader beyond mentioning 'extensions' specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions two specific operations but doesn't explain when to choose get-extensions versus get-full-extension-details, nor when to use this tool versus other Netlify read tools like netlify-project-services-reader or netlify-deploy-services-reader.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds '(read-only)' which aligns with the readOnlyHint: true annotation, confirming it's a safe read operation without contradiction. However, it provides minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (e.g., no details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what data is returned). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some value by reinforcing the read-only nature but lacks rich behavioral disclosure.
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 concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Select and run one of the following Netlify read operations') and lists the operations. There's no wasted text, but it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for operations). It efficiently conveys the tool's scope without redundancy, though it lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (multiple operations via selectSchema), no output schema, and minimal annotations (only readOnlyHint), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the operations return, how to choose between them, or any prerequisites (e.g., required IDs). For a tool with nested parameter structures and sibling tools, more context is needed to guide effective use, making it inadequate despite annotations covering safety.
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 description lists two operations ('get-deploy' and 'get-deploy-for-site') but doesn't explain their parameters or semantics beyond the names. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (selectSchema) that contains nested objects for operations, the schema fully documents the structure (e.g., deployId, siteId requirements). The description adds marginal value by naming the operations, but doesn't compensate for the low coverage or provide meaning beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline is 3 as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool performs 'Netlify read operations' and lists two specific operations (get-deploy, get-deploy-for-site), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what these operations actually do (e.g., retrieve deploy details vs. site-specific deploy info) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'netlify-deploy-services-updater' beyond the 'read-only' mention. The description lacks specificity about the resource being accessed (deploy data) and the exact verb (retrieve/fetch).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'read operations' but doesn't explain when to choose 'get-deploy' vs. 'get-deploy-for-site', nor does it reference sibling tools like 'netlify-deploy-services-updater' for write operations or other read tools (e.g., 'netlify-project-services-reader') for different resources. Usage is implied by the operation names alone, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying it's a 'required step' for coding activities, which suggests it might provide guidelines or validation without modifying resources. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific information is returned. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.
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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with key information ('ALWAYS call...'). It avoids unnecessary details, but could be more structured by explicitly stating the tool's action (e.g., 'retrieves coding rules'). Every sentence earns its place by emphasizing usage, making it efficient though slightly repetitive.
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 has 1 parameter with an enum but no output schema and annotations only cover read-only status, the description is incomplete. It explains when to use the tool but not what it returns or how the parameter influences the output. For a tool with coding rules, more context on the return type or behavior would be helpful, but the usage guidelines partially compensate.
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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but includes an enum defining possible values (e.g., 'serverless', 'edge-functions'). The description does not mention the parameter or explain its semantics, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, but the enum provides some clarity. Baseline is adjusted to 3 due to the presence of an enum, though no additional meaning is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'ALWAYS call when writing serverless or Netlify code' and mentions it's a 'required step before creating or editing any type of functions, Netlify sdk/library usage, etc.' This is tautological as it essentially restates the tool name 'netlify-coding-rules' without specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves coding guidelines, validates code, or provides best practices). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on coding rules rather than deployment/extension/project services, but the purpose remains vague.
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?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'ALWAYS call when writing serverless or Netlify code' and 'required step before creating or editing any type of functions, Netlify sdk/library usage, etc.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool (during code writing for Netlify-related tasks) and implies alternatives are not applicable for this specific preparatory step. It effectively guides the agent on timing and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'read-only' context, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation, providing no contradiction. It also specifies the available operations ('get-teams, get-team'), which gives behavioral insight beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response formats. With annotations covering safety, this adds moderate value.
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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, efficiently stating the tool's purpose and operations. There's no wasted text, and it directly communicates the essential information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating operation details, but it's still highly efficient.
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 (multiple operations under one tool), annotations provide read-only safety, but there's no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose and operations but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how to choose between operations. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with nested operation choices.
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 description doesn't add parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. It mentions 'select and run' operations but doesn't explain the 'selectSchema' structure or parameter details like 'teamId'. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description doesn't compensate for this gap. However, since there's effectively 1 parameter (the operation choice), the baseline is appropriate, but no extra value is added.
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 tool's purpose: 'Select and run one of the following Netlify read operations (read-only) get-teams, get-team'. It specifies the verb ('select and run'), resource ('Netlify read operations'), and scope ('get-teams, get-team'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'netlify-user-services-reader' or 'netlify-project-services-reader', which likely handle different resource types.
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 context by stating 'read operations (read-only)' and listing specific operations ('get-teams, get-team'), suggesting this tool is for retrieving team-related data. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'netlify-user-services-reader' for user data) or any prerequisites. The usage is clear but lacks sibling differentiation and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'read-only' context, which aligns with the annotation readOnlyHint=true, providing no contradiction. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal value.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: it's a selector for three read operations. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 (multiple operations under one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how to interpret results. However, with annotations providing read-only safety and the schema detailing operations, it's minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to understand full behavior.
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 description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. It lists operation names but doesn't explain parameters like 'siteId' or 'teamSlug'. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate, but since there's effectively 1 parameter (selectSchema) with nested options, the baseline is 3 as the schema handles the structure.
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 tool's purpose: 'Select and run one of the following Netlify read operations (read-only) get-project, get-projects, get-forms-for-project.' It specifies the verb ('select and run'), resource ('Netlify read operations'), and lists the three specific operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'netlify-project-services-updater' beyond mentioning 'read-only'.
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 listing the three operations, suggesting this tool is for reading Netlify project data. It mentions 'read-only' which hints at when to use this versus updater siblings, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'netlify-team-services-reader' or 'netlify-user-services-reader'. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/netlify/netlify-mcp'

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