LLPRO Campus

Check whether a website is ready for agents

agent_ready_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Is a website ready for agents? Send a domain (like example.com). We look for /llms.txt, an A2A agent card (/.well-known/agent-card.json) and an MCP server card (/.well-known/mcp.json), say what is found, what is missing and why it matters. Free. Nothing is stored. Public sites only (https, ports 80/443), up to 6 requests per check. Fetches with the user agent 'Countersign/1.0 (independent checker; LLPRO)'. robots.txt is not read.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "agent_ready_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name to check, e.g. example.com (a full URL is accepted; only the host name is used).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency and open-world access, but the description adds real operational context the annotations cannot: a 6-request budget, the exact user-agent string presented to the target site, that robots.txt is deliberately not read, and that nothing is stored. These are exactly the behaviors an agent or its user would want to know before triggering an outbound fetch.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then scope, then limits, then caveats — every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated. The telegraphic fragments are dense but readable and easy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the return shape (what is found, what is missing, why it matters) along with access prerequisites and rate limits. For a single-parameter, single-request-batch checker, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter already documents that a full URL is accepted with only the host used. The description repeats that same fact ("Send a domain (like example.com)") without adding syntax, normalization, or error semantics beyond the schema.

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 question and a concrete verb+resource: send a domain, and the tool inspects /llms.txt, /.well-known/agent-card.json and /.well-known/mcp.json. The named artifacts make it clearly distinguishable from narrower siblings like agent_card_check or page_search_ready.

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?

Implied use case is clear (is this site agent-ready?) and hard constraints are given: public sites only, https on ports 80/443, up to 6 requests per check. It does not name any alternative or say when a narrower check would be preferable, but the exclusions and limits give real boundary guidance.

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

All LLPRO Campus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?