Skip to main content
Glama

agent-ready-kit

by com.mudko

Run a site quality audit (SEO + accessibility + security headers)

run_site_audit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants their site's QUALITY audited — distinct from scan_site, which measures agent-readiness. 22 checks: SEO (title/description lengths, canonical, Open Graph, JSON-LD, heading structure…), accessibility (alt text, form labels, heading order, landmarks…), security headers (HSTS, CSP, X-Content-Type-Options…). FREE tier returns the three section scores + the single most critical finding. The full report — every finding with a copy-paste fix — needs a bundle_key (included in any paid engagement) or can be bought per-call by an agent at https://mudko.com/api/x402/audit ($5, x402 USDC on Base). Fetch-based: SPA shells score their served HTML.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPage URL to audit (required).
bundle_keyNoCustomer bundle key — unlocks the full findings list.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seoNo
a11yNo
tierNo
statusYes
headersNo
messageNo
overallNo
findingsNoPaid tier: every finding with fix strings.
paid_pathNo
limitationNo
top_findingNoFree tier: the single most critical finding.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: lists the 22 checks across three categories, explains free vs. paid behavior (partial vs. full report), and notes fetch-based behavior for SPAs. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that efficiently covers usage, checks, tiers, and technical note. While it packs a lot of information, every sentence serves a purpose and is front-loaded with the key usage distinction.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (22 checks across three categories, free vs. paid tiers, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers behavior, parameter roles, and return expectations without needing to re-explain the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds significant meaning: explains that url is required, bundle_key unlocks full findings, describes free tier limitations, and provides a purchase URL for per-call access. This goes far beyond the schema docstrings.

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 audits site quality (SEO, accessibility, security headers) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'scan_site' which measures agent-readiness. It lists specific checks, providing a precise verb+resource definition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use (when user wants quality audit) and contrasts with scan_site. It also explains the free vs. paid tier behavior, offering clear guidance on tool selection and prerequisites.

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

All agent-ready-kit toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with descriptions that prevent confusion. Tools like scan_site and run_site_audit are differentiated by their focus on AI-readiness vs. site quality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with clear action words like 'scan', 'create', 'get', 'verify'. Even longer names like 'summarize_scan_for_humans' maintain consistency.

Tool Count4/5

22 tools is slightly above the ideal range but justified by the comprehensive scope of the server, covering scanning, analysis, quoting, file delivery, and verification. Some tools like generate_files and get_customer_files could overlap but serve different contexts.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the entire workflow from site scanning to deployment verification, with no obvious dead ends. All necessary operations for making a site agent-ready are present, including edge cases like x402 validation and credential verification.

Resources