Skip to main content
Glama

agent-ready-kit

by com.mudko

Start Agent Ready Setup

start_agent_ready_setup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when an end user asks 'help me make my site agent-ready' or any equivalent. Orchestrates the end-to-end flow: scan → vertical analysis → tool-name suggestions → tier quote → consult booking. Returns a sequence of next-action MCP tool calls keyed off the current site state, so a downstream agent can drive the conversation without re-deciding what to do next.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe user's website URL (with or without https://)
agent_nameNoName of the calling agent (for analytics; optional)
user_consent_scopeNoWhat the user authorized this agent to do. Honored downstream.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
statusYes
messageNo
scanResultNo
nextActionsNoOrdered list of recommended next MCP tool calls.
currentLevelNo
humanFollowupUrlNoURL a calling agent can show its user for the human-rendered version of this tool's output.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a sequence of next-action MCP calls, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single concise paragraph with no filler. Every sentence provides essential information: trigger, flow, return value, and downstream usage.

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 full parameter schema, output schema presence, and rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, trigger, orchestration sequence, and result format without unnecessary detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond the schema, which is acceptable.

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 trigger phrase that should invoke this tool and summarizes the orchestrated workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual steps.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use this tool based on user request. While it doesn't list when not to use, the trigger is unambiguous and the description implies this is the primary orchestrator, not for individual sub-tasks.

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