list_collectionsList the CMS collections defined on a Webflow site. Returns each collection's id, display name, slug, singular name, created time, and last updated time. Use to discover the CMS structure of a site before listing or reading collection items (the actual site content).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | Yes | The id of the Webflow site whose CMS collections to list (from list_sites). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "site_id": "507a2a13c14d4e0e1a0c4d8f"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., so description adds limited behavioral info beyond listing return fields. No contradictions, but extra context is minimal.
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, front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.
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?
Given one parameter, full schema coverage, good annotations, and no output schema needed, the description provides complete guidance for a list tool.
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 100%, and description adds valuable context: site_id comes from list_sites. This helps the agent understand how to obtain the parameter value.
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 starts with clear verb+resource: 'List the CMS collections defined on a Webflow site.' It specifies return fields (id, display name, slug, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_collection_items and get_collection_item.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'to discover the CMS structure of a site before listing or reading collection items.' Provides clear context but could be more explicit about when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edge_tracker/polymarket_fill_risk all target overlapping prediction-market signals, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence plus entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities partially duplicate each other. The Webflow tools are distinct, but the dominant Pipeworx cluster is hard to navigate.
Naming mixes multiple conventions: clean verb_noun for Webflow tools (list_sites, get_collection_item), an ask_pipeworx family, plain single verbs (remember, recall, forget), and long noun-cluster names for prediction markets (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker). There is no single predictable pattern across the set.
36 tools is excessive for a server named 'Webflow' — only about six tools actually concern the Webflow CMS (list_sites, get_site, list_collections, list_collection_items, get_collection_item, generate_llms_txt). The remaining ~30 tools form a completely different data-research/prediction-market/memory suite, making the server wildly over-scoped and mislabeled.
For the Webflow domain, the surface is read-only: sites and collections can be listed and items fetched, but there are no create, update, delete, or publish operations, leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. The extensive non-Webflow tools do not address the stated server purpose, so the mismatch hurts completeness rather than fixing it.