Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

site_audit_full

[PAID $25 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Full Bierus v2 website audit: ~40 stable control ids (ok / ko / not measured / not applicable) with dated sources: reputation, checkout path (stops at the payment page), reviews and claims, AI visibility, DNS/e-mail auth, JS key leaks, passive security, Lighthouse mobile; guarded French PDF report (5-6 pages) and registry comparison. Async: typically 10-15 min (8-12 min of work measured) plus queue. Pay on delivery: settled only if the PDF is delivered; if Bierus guardrails block the report, nothing is delivered and nothing is charged.

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_audit_full"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic website URL or domain, e.g. https://www.example.com
cityNoCity of the business (optional, helps AI and reputation checks)
nameNoBusiness name (default: from the domain)
sectorNoBusiness sector
productNoWhat the business sells, e.g. 'niche perfume' (default: sector)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / city
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "City of the business (optional, helps AI and reputation checks)",
+  "maxLength": 60,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / product
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "What the business sells, e.g. 'niche perfume' (default: sector)",
+  "maxLength": 80,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the $25 USDC x402 payment, async 10-15 minute runtime, delivery guarantee, guardrail failure behavior, and that checkout inspection stops at the payment page. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a paid long-running audit.

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 front-loaded with payment terms and audit scope, and most clauses earn their place by conveying payment, runtime, or delivery guarantees. It is dense and could be split for readability, but it is not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains the expected output shape: roughly 40 control ids with statuses, dated sources, a 5-6 page guarded PDF, and registry comparison. Combined with runtime and payment behavior, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaningful syntax or semantic guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource and verb scope: a full Bierus v2 website audit with enumerated check categories and a guarded PDF report. The word 'Full' plus the detailed contents distinguishes it from lighter siblings like site_audit_quick without needing 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 clearly frames the tool as a comprehensive paid audit with async timing and pay-on-delivery terms, which helps an agent decide whether the heavier path is appropriate. It does not explicitly compare against site_audit_quick or seo_full_audit, so the when-not guidance is only implied by 'Full'.

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

All Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks toolsInspect
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