score_domain
Score a website's AI technology adoption using BuiltWith data.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to score, e.g. example.com |
AI Stack Score
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The agent lacks necessary transparency for safe invocation.
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?
Description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about the scoring output or any behavioral details, leaving some gaps.
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% with a concise description for the single parameter 'domain'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?
Description clearly states the tool's action: scoring a website's AI technology adoption, and specifies the data source (BuiltWith). It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there are no sibling tools, the description does not provide context on appropriate use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clear and unambiguous.
Naming Consistency5/5
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (score_domain), which is consistent and predictable. No inconsistency can arise with one tool.
Tool Count3/5
A single tool for scoring AI adoption is borderline. While it covers the core function, the server feels thin and may benefit from additional tools for data retrieval or listing technologies.
Completeness2/5
The tool set is severely incomplete: it only provides a scoring function. There are no tools for querying raw technology data, updating scores, or exploring details, leaving obvious gaps for a comprehensive AI stack analysis.