agentic.readiness_probeFree multi-surface storefront readiness snapshot (UCP/ACP discovery, product schema, robots, answer-engine maps). Not an attested Store Guard grade. Response includes a Store Guard $149 CTA. No API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public storefront URL or domain |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Either a successful probe (ok=true, report + demo) or a business error (e.g. missing url) — never a fabricated report.",
+ "oneOf": [
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "demo": {
+ "properties": {
+ "hashSnippet": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "permalink": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "persisted": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "verifyPath": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "permalink",
+ "verifyPath",
+ "hashSnippet",
+ "persisted"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "const": true,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "report": {
+ "properties": {
+ "checks": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "detail": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "pass",
+ "warn",
+ "fail",
+ "skip"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "label",
+ "status",
+ "detail"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "grade": {
+ "enum": [
+ "A",
+ "B",
+ "C",
+ "D",
+ "F"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "host": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "next": {
+ "properties": {
+ "flagship": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sample": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "storeGuardBuy": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "origin": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "probedAt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "score": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "host",
+ "origin",
+ "score",
+ "grade",
+ "summary",
+ "checks",
+ "probedAt",
+ "next"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "report",
+ "demo"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Business error — e.g. missing/invalid url argument, rate limit.",
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: free, no API key required, not attested, and a $149 CTA in the response. However, annotations mark readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, while the description frames the tool as an 'inspect'/'snapshot', so expected side effects are left ambiguous; the description does not clarify whether probing the target has write or non-idempotent consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place: scope of scan, limitation vs Store Guard, CTA, and authentication requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers cost, auth, non-attestation, and the commercial CTA. It does not address potential rate limits or side effects of probing an external URL, so it is not quite complete, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — the 'url' property already says 'Public storefront URL or domain' and maxLength 255. The description reinforces that the target must be public ('multi-sureface storefront readiness') but does not add format or syntax guidance, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action ('readiness snapshot') and concrete outputs ('UCP/ACP discovery, product schema, robots, answer-engine maps'), and explicitly disclaims being an 'attested Store Guard grade'. This is immediately distinguishable from the dispatch.* siblings and from the paid Store Guard product.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives clear selection context: free, no API key required, multi-surface storefront readiness check. The exclusion ('Not an attested Store Guard grade') tells the agent this is not the paid/attested alternative, and the CTA is disclosed upfront. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but none of the dispatch.* siblings compete for this job.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.