Skip to main content
Glama
hostinger

hostinger-api-mcp

Official
by hostinger
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions(1)
TypeScript
Remote

List websites

hosting_listWebsitesV1
Read-only

List websites from your Hostinger hosting accounts, filtered by website type, domain, status, username, or order ID.

Instructions

Retrieve a paginated list of websites (CloudLinux, Builder, and Horizons) accessible to the authenticated client.

This endpoint returns websites from your hosting accounts as well as websites from other client hosting accounts that have shared access with you.

Each website includes a website_type field describing the type of website detected on the underlying platform (wordpress, builder, horizons, nodejs, or other). Some fields, such as vhost_type, username, and root_directory, only apply to CloudLinux websites and are null for other platforms.

Use website_types to list only websites of a given detected type, e.g. only WordPress websites (website_types=wordpress) or only Node.js websites (website_types=nodejs). Combine with the other available query parameters to filter by username, order ID, enabled status, or domain name for more targeted results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number
domainNoFilter by domain name (case-insensitive substring match)
order_idNoOrder ID
per_pageNoNumber of items per page
usernameNoFilter by specific username
is_enabledNoFilter by enabled status
website_typesNoFilter by detected website type, e.g. wordpress,nodejs. Accepts a comma-separated list.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.45.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by domain name (exact match)"New value: +"Filter by domain name (case-insensitive substring match)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / website_types
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by detected website type, e.g. wordpress,nodejs. Accepts a comma-separated list.",
+  "items": {
+    "description": "website_types parameter",
+    "enum": [
+      "wordpress",
+      "builder",
+      "horizons",
+      "nodejs",
+      "other"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Addedv1.5.0
  3. Removedv1.2.1
  4. Addedv0.2.2
  5. Removedv0.2.1
  6. Addedv0.1.40

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: pagination, shared-access inclusion, platform-specific null fields (vhost_type, username, root_directory), and the meaning of website_type values. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains scope, field semantics, and filtering in separate logical paragraphs. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or fluff.

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 read-only paginated list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers pagination, response field semantics, and available filters. It does not spell out every response field, but it highlights the ones most likely to confuse an agent, making it nearly complete.

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 parameters. The description adds some value by giving usage examples and grouping filter parameters, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a paginated list of websites'. It also clarifies scope ('accessible to the authenticated client', including shared-access websites), which distinguishes this from other hosting list tools. The mention of CloudLinux, Builder, and Horizons makes the resource type concrete.

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 gives clear filtering guidance, including explicit examples ('website_types=wordpress', 'website_types=nodejs') and mentions combinable query parameters. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when this list endpoint is appropriate.

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/hostinger/api-mcp-server'

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