Assign an existing site to a client space by name or slug, auto-creating the client if needed, or detach it to a floating page with null. One call per site.
File an existing site under a client space (by name or slug, auto-created), or pass client: null to detach it to a floating page. Mirrors set_password: one site, one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | Yes | ||
| id_or_slug | Yes | Site id, slug, or unlisted token. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses auto-creation of client spaces, detaching to a floating page on null, and the one-site-one-call constraint. It does not cover permissions, return values, or reversibility, but the key side effects are explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the null case follows immediately. The cross-reference to set_password is compact and useful for an agent familiar with that sibling.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies both parameters' roles, the auto-creation side effect, and the detach behavior. It omits return/error details, but those are not required for correct invocation and no output schema exists to document them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50%; the description adds meaning to `client` by explaining it can be a client-space name/slug, is auto-created, or null for detaching. `id_or_slug` is left to the schema, but the description's coupling to 'existing site' reinforces its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('File'), names the resource ('an existing site under a client space'), and covers both attach/detach modes with 'pass client: null to detach it to a floating page.' It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools even without schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It conveys the core usage scenario and the special null case, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling tools such as set_agentation or update_client_space. The phrase 'Mirrors set_password: one site, one call' hints at a pattern but does not state exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.