Skip to main content
Glama

Outrings Web Intelligence

by com.outrings
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Audit a website

audit_website
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run the full 200-check audit of a website and return the overall score, every category score, and the ranked list of what to fix first. Use this when the user asks a broad question about a site — "how is my website", "what is wrong with it", "is this site any good" — or when you need grounding before advising on changes. Takes roughly 2-8 seconds. If the user only cares about one area, check_category is faster and returns less.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe website to inspect. A bare domain works — "example.com" is treated as https://example.com.
detailNosummary: scores plus priority actions (default, best for most answers). markdown: the whole report as prose written for a model to read. full: the complete JSON including every check, link, script and email found.summary

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL that was measured, after redirects.
gradeYesLetter grade from A+ to F.
scoreYesOverall score out of 100.
countsYesChecks by status. The last five are undetermined states and are never scored as passes.
categoriesYesEvery category with its own score.
undeterminedNoCheck ids that reached no verdict. Never treat these as passes.
priorityActionsNoFindings ranked by points recovered per unit of effort.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "categories": {
+      "description": "Every category with its own score.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "score": {
+            "description": "Null when no check in the category reached a verdict.",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "counts": {
+      "description": "Checks by status. The last five are undetermined states and are never scored as passes.",
+      "properties": {
+        "blocked": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "fail": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "inconclusive": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "info": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "na": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "pass": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "requires_browser": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "timeout": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "unknown": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "warn": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "grade": {
+      "description": "Letter grade from A+ to F.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "priorityActions": {
+      "description": "Findings ranked by points recovered per unit of effort.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "action": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "category": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "pointsIfFixed": {
+            "description": "Arithmetic from the weights that produced the score, not an estimate.",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "rank": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "Overall score out of 100.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "undetermined": {
+      "description": "Check ids that reached no verdict. Never treat these as passes.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "The URL that was measured, after redirects.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "url",
+    "score",
+    "grade",
+    "counts",
+    "categories"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the provided annotations by adding useful behavioral context like the expected response time ('Takes roughly 2-8 seconds') and a note about using the tool as 'grounding' before advising on changes. It doesn't contradict the read-only and idempotent annotations.

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?

Perfectly sized. Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect in terms of performance. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is structured logically.

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?

The description is perfectly complete for a tool with only two simple parameters and no complex return types. It thoughtfully covers the functionality, provides examples for the parameter, and explicitly acknowledges the existence of a sibling tool without going into unnecessary depth about it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

While the schema already covers most of the descriptive burden with 100% coverage, the description adds excellent VALUE BEYOND that, particularly for the 'url' parameter with the real-world example that a bare domain is treated as https. This proactive clarification is exactly what a helper should do.

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 is exceptionally clear with a strong verb and resource ('Run the full 200-check audit of a website'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the use case for broad questions and specifically names the alternative 'check_category' for narrower queries.

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?

Offers explicit trigger phrases and when-to-use guidance. It also provides a clear alternative ('If the user only cares about one area, check_category is faster') and notes the trade-off in terms of speed and output size, which is invaluable for an agent to select the right tool.

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

All Outrings Web Intelligence 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