Let Agents In

Scan a domain for agent readiness

scan_domain

Scores a domain across 5 funnel stages using 16 deterministic HTTP checks. 18 points exist on paper; the score is out of the points that both applied to the domain and could be evaluated. Returns a per-check breakdown with the reason for each result and a permanent link.

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>"
    },
    "name": "scan_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Bare domain, for example example.com
`format`	No	summary is the readable breakdown. agent returns markdown instructions you can act on directly, each task carrying the measurement behind it. sarif returns SARIF 2.1.0 for a code-scanning pipeline.	summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool makes 16 deterministic HTTP checks, which aligns with the openWorldHint annotation indicating external side effects. It adds context about the scoring logic and that a permanent link is returned, going beyond the annotations. However, it could more explicitly state that HTTP requests are made to the submitted domain, but overall it is transparent enough for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 three sentences, no filler, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: the scoring method, the scoring scale, and the output format. This is an appropriately sized and well-structured description.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, how scoring works, and what the result includes (per-check breakdown with link). It is missing explicit mention of the external HTTP requests (implied by openWorldHint) which could affect agent planning, but still leaves agents reasonably informed for invocation.

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%, with both parameters (domain, format) fully described in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides for these parameters. Therefore, it meets the baseline expectation with no extra contribution.

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 clearly states the tool scores a domain across 5 funnel stages using 16 deterministic HTTP checks. The verb "scores" is specific, the resource "domain" is explicit, and the explanation of the scoring system (18 points, scaled) distinguishes it from the sibling tool find_providers, which likely searches for providers rather than assessing readiness.

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 usage for assessing a domain's agent readiness, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus find_providers or any other alternative. No guidance on exclusions (e.g., when not to use) or prerequisites is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose alone.

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

All Let Agents In 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?