Skip to main content
Glama

Orbilo

by co.orbilo

Check a Site

check_site
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a website is ready for AI agents against the UCP, WebMCP and Access specs. Use this when someone asks "can agents use my site", whether a site supports UCP or WebMCP, or why an agent cannot buy from or act on a page. Returns a score and grade per spec, every check that passed, warned or failed with a fix for each, and a shareable report link. Runs live and can take up to a minute for all three specs. Works without signing in; signed-in users get a higher daily limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe page to check, e.g. https://shop.example.com. A bare domain is checked over https.
specNoWhich spec to check: ucp, webmcp, access, or all (default). WebMCP checks are page-specific, so pass the page that registers tools.
freshNoSkip the 10 minute result cache and check the site again now.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: it runs live, can take up to a minute, returns scores/grades with check-level fixes, provides a shareable report link, and notes the signed-in daily limit difference. No contradiction with annotations.

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 purpose and usage, then return value, runtime expectation, and auth behavior. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned: score and grade per spec, passed/warned/failed checks with fixes, and a shareable report link. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that all three specs are checked and that WebMCP is page-specific, but the detailed parameter meanings are already fully documented in the schema. No additional semantic burden is placed on the description.

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: checking whether a website is ready for AI agents against the UCP, WebMCP, and Access specs. It also gives concrete user-intent triggers such as "can agents use my site" and "why an agent cannot buy from or act on a page," which makes the tool's role clear and distinct from status or monitoring tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: when someone asks about agent readiness, spec support, or agent failures on a page. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use cases are concrete and sufficient for an agent to select this tool over the siblings.

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

All Orbilo 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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: live one-off checking, fetching a stored report, adding a monitored site, listing monitored sites, and retrieving a single site's status. The descriptions explicitly contrast when to use check_site versus get_site_status, so there is no meaningful ambiguity between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: add_, check_, get_, get_, list_. The verbs map cleanly to their operations, and there is no mixing of conventions or vague generic names.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a site-readiness checking and monitoring service. Each tool contributes a distinct capability without unnecessary overlap or bloat.

Completeness3/5

The one-off checking flow is well covered with check_site and get_report, and the monitoring read side is covered by list_monitored_sites and get_site_status. However, the monitoring lifecycle is incomplete: sites can be added but there is no tool to stop monitoring, remove a site, or update monitoring settings, which is a notable gap.

Resources