Lordevo Shop (x402 website checks)

Tech stack detection ($0.002/call)

tech_stack

Read-onlyIdempotent

$0.002 per call (x402, USDC on Base; free trial: add "trial": true or use try_free). [Web and domain checks] Detect what a website is built with from its homepage HTML and headers: CMS/site builder, ecommerce platform, JS framework, analytics and ad pixels, tag manager, chat/support widgets, payments, consent, CDN, hosting, web server, language. ~90 signatures with evidence-based detection and versions where visible. Obeys robots.txt. ~1-3 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": "tech_stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) URL or bare domain, e.g. https://example.com
`trial`	No	Optional. true = free if a trial call is left (3 per IP per UTC day), else the payment terms.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`tool`	No
`cache`	No
`_trial`	No	Present when the call was a free trial call.
`server`	No
`provider`	No
`price_usd`	No
`by_category`	No
`technologies`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / trial / description

Previous value: -"Optional. true = answer free if a trial call is left (3 per IP per UTC day); otherwise you get the payment terms."New value: +"Optional. true = free if a trial call is left (3 per IP per UTC day), else the payment terms."

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / trial

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. true = answer free if a trial call is left (3 per IP per UTC day); otherwise you get the payment terms.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

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"
+    },
+    "by_category": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "cache": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "price_usd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "provider": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "server": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "technologies": {
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/open-world, so the description doesn't waste words there and instead adds the traits annotations cannot carry: price ($0.002/call via x402 USDC on Base), the free-trial mechanics, robots.txt compliance, evidence-based detection with versions where visible, and expected latency (~1-3 s). That is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs before spending a paid call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tight single block: price/trial first, then the detection scope, then compliance and latency. Every clause carries information, though the dense signature-list sentence is slightly list-heavy for prose.

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 two-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, this covers cost, trial, scope, compliance and speed. The only gap is failure behavior — what happens on unreachable pages, JS-rendered sites, or when only some of the ~90 signatures match.

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 schema already explains both url and trial, including the 3-per-IP-per-UTC-day trial limit. The description mostly restates the trial option and adds no new constraints on accepted URL forms beyond what the schema says, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Detect what a website is built with from its homepage HTML and headers') and then enumerates the detected categories (CMS, ecommerce, JS framework, pixels, CDN, hosting, language). This is clearly distinct from siblings like seo_page, page_meta, security_headers or structured_data, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context for use (web/domain checks against a homepage) and, importantly, routes the cost-sensitive agent to the free path via 'trial': true or the try_free sibling. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. it never says to use security_headers or seo_audit_lite instead when those are the actual need.

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?