Lordevo Shop (x402 website checks)

Site snapshot (SEO + security + tech + email) ($0.02/call)

site_snapshot

Read-onlyIdempotent

$0.02 per call (x402, USDC on Base; not covered by the free trial). [SEO, security and site verdicts] All four quick checks in one call for a website: on-page SEO score and issues, security headers/TLS grade, tech stack, and the domain's SPF/DKIM/DMARC email authentication. Good for lead qualification, vendor due diligence or a first look before a full audit. ~3-8 s.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "site_snapshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) URL or bare domain, e.g. https://example.com

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seo`	No
`url`	No
`tech`	No
`tool`	No
`cache`	No
`email`	No
`_trial`	No	Present when the call was a free trial call.
`domain`	No
`scores`	No
`provider`	No
`security`	No
`price_usd`	No
`top_issues`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "tool",
+        "url"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "accepts": {
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "error": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "resource": {
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "x402Version": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "x402Version",
+        "accepts"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "charged": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "error": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "properties": {
+    "_trial": {
+      "description": "Present when the call was a free trial call.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "cache": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "email": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "price_usd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "provider": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scores": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "security": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "seo": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "tech": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "top_issues": {
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real context beyond them: cost ($0.02/call), billing rail (x402, USDC on Base), that the free trial does not cover it, and expected latency (~3-8 s). It does not cover failure modes (e.g., behavior on non-public or unreachable URLs) or whether partial results are returned.

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?

Pricing and the one-line scope tag are front-loaded, followed by the check list, then use cases, then latency. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or title.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, output-schema-backed tool this is nearly complete: cost, latency, scope and use cases are all present so the agent need not open the schema. Only edge-case behavior (invalid/non-public URLs, partial failures) is left unstated.

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 a single required `url` parameter already documented as accepting a public http(s) URL or bare domain with an example, so the baseline applies. The description adds no further parameter meaning such as URL normalization behavior or whether it follows redirects.

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?

States a specific verb+resource bundle: 'All four quick checks in one call for a website' and then enumerates exactly what those four are (on-page SEO score/issues, security headers/TLS grade, tech stack, SPF/DKIM/DMARC). This clearly distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like seo_audit_lite, security_headers, tech_stack, and email_auth.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('lead qualification, vendor due diligence or a first look before a full audit'), with 'before a full audit' implicitly routing deeper work to the individual audit siblings. It does not name those siblings explicitly or state when-not to use this (e.g., for a single-dimension check), so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Lordevo Shop (x402 website checks) 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?