gpsem

Lister les sites

listSites

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get all sites belonging to a company, each with encoded ID and URL. Use this to view and manage your company's site inventory.

Instructions

Lister les sites — Retourne tous les sites de l'entreprise avec ID encodé et URL. — (GET /entreprises/{entrepriseId}/sites)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "entrepriseId": "<entrepriseId>"
    },
    "name": "listSites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entrepriseId`	Yes	ID entreprise encodé (hashid)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful details like the HTTP GET endpoint and the return fields, but it does not mention pagination, error behavior, or any other operational nuance.

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 compact and packs the endpoint, resource, and returned fields into a single line. There is slight redundancy between the title 'Lister les sites' and the descriptive start, but no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a low-complexity list operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough information: it identifies the resource, the filter (entrepriseId), and the fields returned. It could mention pagination or error scenarios, but these are not critical for correct invocation here.

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 coverage is 100%: entrepriseId is documented as an encoded hashid. The description mentions 'ID encodé' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Retourne tous les sites') and the resource ('sites de l'entreprise'), and specifies the output includes encoded ID and URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getSite (single site) and createSite (creation).

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 makes the intended use case clear—retrieving all sites for a given enterprise—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative such as getSite or createSite. There is no misleading guidance, but the when/why choice is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server