Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
warpweb-mcp

warpweb-mcp

by northbeamsoftware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List your Warpweb sites

list_sites

Retrieve all websites owned by your account, including ID, slug, business name, status, and deployment URL.

Instructions

List every site owned by the calling account. Returns an array of site rows (id, slug, business_name, status, deployment_url, created_at, updated_at, etc.). Free, not metered.

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": "list_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that the operation is a read-only enumeration, returns an array of site rows with key fields, and is free/unmetered. It does not cover authentication or pagination, but for a simple, parameterless list this is reasonable.

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 short sentences: one states the action and ownership scope, the other gives return format and cost. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so description compensates by listing return fields. With zero parameters and simple semantics, it fully covers usage. Alternative tools are not referenced, but the description is sufficient for invocation.

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?

Tool accepts zero parameters; schema coverage is 100% by default. Description has no parameters to explain, so baseline 4 applies.

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 starts with 'List every site owned by the calling account' – a specific verb and resource scope, and 'array of site rows' clarifies output. This clearly distinguishes it from singular get_site, search_businesses, and create_site siblings.

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 mention of when to use versus siblings like get_site or search_businesses; it only states what it does and that it's free/not metered. The 'every site' phrasing implies broad enumeration, but there are no explicit exclusionary guidelines.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools