Skip to main content
Glama

Layero

by ru.layero

Мои сайты

my_projects
Read-onlyIdempotent

The user's sites on Layero.

Thirty most recent by default. The full list is rarely needed, while
flooding half your context with it is easy: an active user has dozens
of projects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoСколько последних проектов вернуть. По умолчанию 30 — этого хватает почти всегда; поднимай, только если пользователь ищет старый сайт и в списке его нет.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Сколько последних проектов вернуть. По умолчанию 30 — этого хватает почти всегда; поднимай, только если пользователь ищет старый сайт и в списке его нет."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds the default behavior (thirty most recent) and a warning about context size, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences that front-load the purpose and add one crucial behavioral note. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list with a single optional parameter, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and a context-risk warning. The output schema and annotations fill in the rest, making it sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage with a detailed Russian description of the limit parameter. The tool description reinforces the default but adds no new technical details, matching baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description states 'The user's sites on Layero' — clear resource and scope. It doesn't explicitly use a verb like 'list' or 'fetch', but the tool name and title make the action evident. No explicit differentiation from siblings like list_structures, but the resource is distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides guidance on the default limit and warns against fetching the full list to avoid context flooding, but does not mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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

All Layero 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. The deploy lifecycle is cleanly separated into cancel, retry, rollback, diagnose, logs, list, and status, while the site_* tools each answer a different question. Even the two compose_landing tools are explicitly differentiated for model vs. internal use.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb-first patterns (check_domain, list_deploys, connect_analytics) with noun-first patterns (site_issues, deploy_logs, env_vars), and some are bare verbs (rollback, whoami). The naming is descriptive and readable, but not consistent enough to predict the style for a new tool.

Tool Count2/5

27 tools exceeds the typical well-scoped range and pushes into 'too many' territory. While the server covers a broad platform scope, many tools are highly specialized (check_copy, site_screenshot), and an agent may be overwhelmed by the sheer number of choices. Consolidation could reduce the load.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is solid: compose, publish, monitor, diagnose, and rollback, with supporting tools for domains, analytics, performance, and content inspection. However, there are no delete/remove operations for projects, domains, or integrations, and integration management is limited to adding. These are minor gaps that agents can work around, but they are notable for a full platform.

Resources