Skip to main content
Glama

Whole portfolio, ranked by urgency

portfolio_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs maintenance checks across every site in a portfolio and returns one report ordered by urgency, showing downtime, expiring domains, and regressions. Use it to triage multi-site client lists.

Instructions

Runs the maintenance checks across every site in a portfolio and returns one report ordered by what needs action first: what is down, what expires soonest, what regressed since the last run.

Use it to answer "what needs attention this week?", "is anything down?" or "what do I put in this quarter's report?" across a whole client list. It is the right call whenever the question is about more than one site — running domain_check, ssl_check and uptime_check once per site by hand is what this replaces.

The portfolio comes from the "sites" argument, or from a local JSON file ("sites.json" by default) whose format is documented in sites.example.json. Pass "checks" to override what each site asks for — ["uptime"] answers "is anything down right now?" in a fraction of the time — and "tags" to report on part of the portfolio.

Do not use it to answer a question about one site: domain_check, ssl_check, uptime_check and seo_audit answer those directly and in a fraction of the time. It runs checks and reports; it never changes a site, and it never writes to the portfolio file.

A site that cannot be checked is reported as a finding, never as a failure of the whole report. Only a portfolio that cannot be read at all is an error.

What changed since the previous run is compared against one recorded snapshot. By default that snapshot lives in memory and is lost when this server restarts; a portfolio file may add a "history" path, and then the snapshot is written there and comparisons survive a restart for up to 90 days. Nothing is written unless the portfolio asks for it. Either way the report says what it had to compare against, and why it had nothing when it had nothing, rather than implying nothing changed. Only sites that both runs measured the same way are compared, so a quick uptime-only pass never invents regressions in the run after it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoPath to a portfolio JSON file, e.g. "/Users/you/sites.json". Give the full path: a relative one is resolved against the directory this server was started in, which for a desktop client is usually "/" and not the user's own. Defaults to "sites.json". Ignored when "sites" is given. The format is documented in sites.example.json; only .json files can be read.
tagsNoOnly report on sites carrying at least one of these tags, e.g. ["retainer"]. Matched case-insensitively. Omit to report on the whole portfolio.
sitesNoThe portfolio, passed inline. Use this for a one-off report over a handful of sites. When omitted, the portfolio is read from the local file instead.
checksNoRun exactly these checks for every site, ignoring what the file says. Use it for a quick pass — ["uptime"] answers "is anything down right now?" in a fraction of the time.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesThe file it was read from, when it was read from one.
notesYesAnything the report could not do, said plainly rather than left out.
sitesYesEvery site, most urgent first.
sourceYesWhere the portfolio came from.
changesYesWhat changed since the previous run in this server process.
summaryYesHow many sites landed at each severity.
severityYesHow much attention this needs. "critical" means act now; "warning" means act this month; "unknown" means the check could not establish the fact, which is not the same as it being fine.
siteCountYesHow many sites the report covers, after any tag filter.
generatedAtYesWhen the report was produced, ISO 8601 in UTC.
needsAttentionYesEverything worth acting on, worst first. This is the list the report exists to produce.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: it never changes a site nor writes to the portfolio file, partial failures surface as findings rather than whole-report errors, and the snapshot mechanism (in-memory vs. a 'history' path surviving 90 days) is disclosed along with the caveat that only identically-measured sites are compared.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing, and every paragraph carries real information about behavior or arguments. It is on the long side and repeats 'in a fraction of the time' twice, but no sentence is 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?

For a multi-parameter orchestration tool with an output schema (so return shape needs no restating), the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: alternate portfolio sources, check overriding, failure semantics, and snapshot/history persistence.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine routing meaning: the 'sites' inline argument vs. the default sites.json file, 'checks' as a speed lever for a quick pass, and 'tags' for scoping to part of the portfolio.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Runs the maintenance checks across every site in a portfolio and returns one report ordered by what needs action first.' It further distinguishes itself from the single-site siblings by naming them, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('what needs attention this week?', 'is anything down?'), names the fleet of alternatives (domain_check, ssl_check, uptime_check, seo_audit) and the condition that selects them, and adds an explicit when-not: 'Do not use it to answer a question about one site.'

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