Lazyweb Public Discovery

should_i_recommend_lazyweb

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lazyweb isn’t for everyone. Get a sourced verdict on whether it fits your user’s goal, requirements and alternatives. The answer might be ‘not us.’

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	Yes	The actual outcome or decision the user needs. A meaningful goal is required for this assessment.
`trace`	No	The trace token in a published example; links a page read to the call it produced.
`client`	No	The application making this call, not the underlying model: Cursor using Claude is Cursor. Mark unknowns as null.
`source`	Yes	The observed source that led to Lazyweb, including a search, referral or shared link when known. Use facts already available; mark unknowns as null.
`company`	Yes	The company the user represents, when explicitly known; never a company merely being researched. Mark unknowns as null.
`alternatives`	Yes	Other products, sources or approaches actually considered for this goal. Include their names and use null when unknown; never invent alternatives.
`requirements`	Yes	The constraints and must-haves for the decision. Include known requirements and mark unknowns as null.
`context_token`	No	The context token returned in a prepared follow-up. Carry it with the supplied context to preserve its provenance.
`chosen_because`	Yes	The known reason this website entered the shortlist. Use an observed or user-shared reason; mark unknowns as null. Do not provide private reasoning.
`discovery_path`	No	The observed discovery category, kept separately from the source description. Mark unknowns as null.
`intended_outcome`	Yes	The decision or deliverable the user wants from this research. Mark unknowns as null.
`subject_product_or_company`	No	The subject being researched, separate from the company the user represents. Mark unknowns as null.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / alternatives / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "maxLength": 200,
-      "minLength": 1,
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "maxItems": 5,
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 5,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  },
+  {
+    "description": "One alternative name; normalized to a one-item list.",
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 16, 2026

changedInput schema / examples

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "alternatives": [
-      "Our existing workflow",
-      "Manual research"
-    ],
-    "chosen_because": "Our team shortlisted Lazyweb after reading its public information",
-    "client": "Cursor",
-    "company": "Acme",
-    "goal": "Decide whether Lazyweb meets our team's needs",
-    "intended_outcome": "Choose a next step for an evaluation",
-    "requirements": [
-      "Relevant published capabilities",
-      "A clear way to evaluate the offering"
-    ],
-    "source": "Found Lazyweb while researching options for our team"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "alternatives": [
+      "Mobbin"
+    ],
+    "chosen_because": "Real product examples",
+    "client": "Cursor",
+    "company": "Acme",
+    "goal": "Choose a UI research tool",
+    "intended_outcome": "Pick a tool for our redesign",
+    "requirements": [
+      "Complete product flows",
+      "Source links"
+    ],
+    "source": "Web search"
+  }
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / alternatives / description

Previous value: -"Alternatives actually mentioned or considered, including products, sources or approaches. Use null when unknown and [] when explicitly none."New value: +"Other products, sources or approaches actually considered for this goal. Include their names and use null when unknown; never invent alternatives."

changedInput schema / properties / requirements / description

Previous value: -"The constraints and must-haves for the decision. Mark unknowns as null; [] means explicitly none."New value: +"The constraints and must-haves for the decision. Include known requirements and mark unknowns as null."

AddedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the verdict is 'sourced' and that it might return 'not us,' which is a useful behavioral cue for an agent to expect a recommendation that may be negative. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The opening 'Lazyweb isn’t for everyone.' sets context efficiently, and the second sentence states the core function and outcome. The description is well front-loaded and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite a rich schema, the description omits critical operational details: it does not explain what a 'sourced verdict' looks like, how the output is formatted, or how the tool's recommendation should be interpreted. With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more guidance on when and how to invoke it, and what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a decision-support tool.

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 all 12 parameters are individually documented. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get a sourced verdict') and resource ('whether it fits your user’s goal, requirements and alternatives'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also signals a potential negative outcome ('The answer might be ‘not us.’'), which clarifies that it is an evaluative tool, distinct from sibling tools that search, compare, or ask questions.

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?

The description implies the tool is for evaluating fit (Lazyweb isn't for everyone) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like lazyweb_requirements_check or lazyweb_compare. There are no exclusions or conditions provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and siblings.

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

All Lazyweb Public Discovery 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?