Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Bannerproof

by app.bannerproof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Audit any website (uses 1 credit)

audit_domain
Destructive

Full audit of any website (for example a client's or a prospect's site) that is NOT monitored in the account. Spends 1 audit credit, so it is marked destructive and runs only with confirm=true. If the same site was audited in the last 24 hours, the earlier result is returned without spending a credit unless force_new=true. If the site can't be scanned, the credit is returned automatically.

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>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "audit_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe website's domain, e.g. client-site.com
confirmYesConfirms spending 1 audit credit; without true the audit does not run
languageNoLanguage for the fix instructions and report links: en, de, fr, es, it, nl, da, sv, fi, no, et, pl or pt. Normally the language of the conversation. Default en.
force_newNoRun a new paid audit even if this site was audited in the last 24 hours

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the 1-credit cost, the confirm=true gate, the 24-hour cached-result behavior that avoids spending a credit, and automatic credit refund on unscannable sites. These are exactly the operational consequences an agent needs before acting.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: eligibility, cost, caching, failure refund. Cost and gating are front-loaded ahead of the edge cases.

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?

Eligibility, cost, confirmation, caching and refunds are all covered for a destructive metered tool. What the audit report actually contains is unaddressed and there is no output schema, but that gap is minor relative to the rest.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining why confirm exists (credit spend) and the cache-bypass semantics of force_new. Language is left to the schema, which is fine.

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 verb and resource ('full audit of any website') plus a scoping constraint ('NOT monitored in the account') that cleanly separates it from audit_domains, scan_domain and quick_check. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use for client/prospect sites not monitored in the account, with the forced-credit path via force_new. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool to use for already-monitored sites, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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

All Bannerproof toolsInspect
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