Skip to main content
Glama

Valet

by io.github.valetdotdev

Get a website

get_site
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one website's URL, access mode, version, and expiry. Identify it by name, which requires connecting a Valet account, or by the site_token returned when it was published anonymously.

A password-protected site reports that it is gated and never its visitor password. Read the password from the Valet dashboard instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoGive this or site_token. The site's name, which requires a connected Valet account.
org_nameNoThe Valet organization the site belongs to. Omit to use the organization the account joined first.
site_tokenNoGive this or name. The token returned when the site was published anonymously; it identifies that one site.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"The site's name. Requires a connected Valet account."New value: +"Give this or site_token. The site's name, which requires a connected Valet account."
    • changedInput schema / properties / site_token / description
      Previous value: -"The token returned when the site was published anonymously. It identifies that one site."New value: +"Give this or name. The token returned when the site was published anonymously; it identifies that one site."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: password-protected sites report as 'gated' and never expose the visitor password, and name-based identification requires a connected Valet account. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short paragraphs with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and return fields, and the second paragraph delivers an important caveat about password-protected sites. Everything included earns its place.

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 simple getter with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields, the two identification modes, the account prerequisite for name, and the password behavior. An agent has everything it needs to call the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description reinforces that name requires a connected account and site_token comes from anonymous publishing, but it does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 begins with 'Get one website's URL, access mode, version, and expiry,' which uses a specific verb and resource and names the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_sites or publish_site by emphasizing 'one website' and its retrieval purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on how to identify the site—by name (requiring a Valet account) or by site_token (anonymous publication)—and warns that visitor passwords are never returned. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like list_sites for enumeration, but the identification guidance is sufficient for correct selection in most cases.

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

All Valet toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action. The three list_* connector tools are clearly separated by scope (catalog vs attachable vs attached), and the site management tools are unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a uniform verb_noun snake_case pattern. Each name directly states the action and object, with no mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the set covers two clear domains—site publishing and connector management—and each tool has a distinct role. The count is justified, if a bit heavy.

Completeness4/5

Site lifecycle is well covered: publish, list, get, rename, delete, access, and share. The connector lifecycle covers create, attach, detach, and call, but lacks delete/update connector operations, which are a minor gap.

Resources