Skip to main content
Glama

get_site

Retrieve details for a specific site by providing server and site IDs. Get site configuration, status, and metadata to manage deployments and server integration efficiently.

Instructions

Get details of a specific site

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
server_idYesThe ID of the server
site_idYesThe ID of the site

Implementation Reference

  • The 'get_site' tool is registered on the MCP server via server.tool() with Zod schema for server_id and site_id parameters.
    server.tool(
      "get_site",
      "Get details of a specific site",
      {
        server_id: z.coerce.number().describe("The ID of the server"),
        site_id: z.coerce.number().describe("The ID of the site"),
      },
      async ({ server_id, site_id }) => {
        const site = await client.getSite(server_id, site_id);
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text" as const,
              text: JSON.stringify(site, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    );
  • The handler function for 'get_site': calls client.getSite(server_id, site_id) and returns the site object as JSON text content.
    async ({ server_id, site_id }) => {
      const site = await client.getSite(server_id, site_id);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text" as const,
            text: JSON.stringify(site, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Input schema for 'get_site' using Zod: server_id (coerced number) and site_id (coerced number), each with a description.
    {
      server_id: z.coerce.number().describe("The ID of the server"),
      site_id: z.coerce.number().describe("The ID of the site"),
    },
  • The PloiClient.getSite() method that makes the actual GET request to /servers/{serverId}/sites/{siteId} and returns the Site data.
    async getSite(serverId: number, siteId: number): Promise<Site> {
      const response = await this.request<ApiResponse<Site>>(
        "GET",
        `/servers/${serverId}/sites/${siteId}`
      );
      return response.data;
    }
  • The Site interface defining the shape of the data returned by get_site (id, server_id, domain, status, etc.).
    export interface Site {
      id: number;
      server_id: number;
      domain: string;
      deploy_script: string | null;
      web_directory: string;
      project_type: string;
      php_version: string;
      status: string;
      has_repository: boolean;
      zero_downtime_deployment: boolean;
      created_at: string;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' without clarifying that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or what happens if the site doesn't exist. No side effects or permissions are mentioned.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded (e.g., specifying required IDs) without losing conciseness.

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, the description should hint at what 'details' include (e.g., site status, configuration, logs). It lacks this context and does not address the two required parameters or potential error cases.

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 provides complete parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 retrieves details of a site ('Get details of a specific site'), but it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_sites or find_site_by_domain. It could benefit from mentioning that it requires server_id and site_id to narrow the scope.

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 (e.g., list_sites for overview, find_site_by_domain for domain-based lookup). The agent is left to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/sudanese/ploi-mcp'

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