Outrings Web Intelligence

Check one area of a website

check_category

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect a single area and return its verdict, the checks that failed, why each matters and how to fix it. Categories: seo, ai (whether AI crawlers and answer engines can read and cite the site), security (headers, exposure, secrets in source), privacy, tls (certificate and protocol), dns (records, SPF, DMARC, CAA), a11y (accessibility), content, slop (AI-generated-filler signals), design, infra, tech, credibility, correlation (does the page deliver what its title promises), faq, discoverability, local, contact. Use this rather than audit_website when the question is narrow — "is my site secure", "why is my SEO bad", "can ChatGPT see my site".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The website to inspect. A bare domain works — "example.com" is treated as https://example.com.
`category`	Yes	Which area to inspect.
`failing_only`	No	Return only problems, omitting checks that passed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`name`	No	Human-readable category name.
`score`	Yes
`counts`	No	Checks by status. The last five are undetermined states and are never scored as passes.
`category`	Yes	The category id that was inspected.
`problems`	No	Checks that failed or warned, in check order.
`passingCount`	No
`undetermined`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / category / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "seo",
-  "local",
-  "ai",
-  "dns",
-  "tls",
-  "security",
-  "privacy",
-  "infra",
-  "tech",
-  "content",
-  "slop",
-  "design",
-  "a11y",
-  "credibility",
-  "correlation",
-  "faq",
-  "discoverability",
-  "contact"
-]New value: +[
+  "seo",
+  "schema",
+  "local",
+  "ai",
+  "dns",
+  "tls",
+  "security",
+  "privacy",
+  "infra",
+  "speed",
+  "tech",
+  "content",
+  "slop",
+  "design",
+  "a11y",
+  "credibility",
+  "correlation",
+  "faq",
+  "discoverability",
+  "contact"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "category": {
+      "description": "The category id that was inspected.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "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"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Human-readable category name.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "passingCount": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "problems": {
+      "description": "Checks that failed or warned, in check order.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "fix": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "found": {
+            "description": "What was actually observed.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Stable check id, e.g. sec.csp.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "enum": [
+              "low",
+              "medium",
+              "high",
+              "critical",
+              null
+            ],
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "enum": [
+              "fail",
+              "warn"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "why": {
+            "description": "Why it matters. Our reading, not the observation.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "undetermined": {
+      "items": {
+        "description": "A check that reached no verdict. Report it as undetermined, never as a pass.",
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reason": {
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "blocked",
+              "timeout",
+              "inconclusive",
+              "requires_browser"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "url",
+    "category",
+    "score"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, promising remediation guidance per failed check and explaining non-obvious categories like 'ai' and 'correlation'. It stops short of noting cost, latency, or that categories are scored independently.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then the routing rule. The 18-value category enumeration largely duplicates the schema enum and is the one place the text spends words that the structured data already supplies.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the verdict/failure/fix shape. For a 3-parameter read-only tool with annotated safety, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by defining ambiguous enum values the schema leaves bare — 'ai' as crawler/answer-engine readability, 'tls' as certificate and protocol, 'slop' as AI-filler signals. Minor drift: the prose list omits the 'schema' and 'speed' values that exist in the enum.

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 precise verb and resource ('Inspect a single area and return its verdict'), then enumerates exactly what comes back (failed checks, why each matters, how to fix). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling audit_website, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Use this rather than audit_website when the question is narrow', followed by three concrete example questions ('is my site secure', 'why is my SEO bad', 'can ChatGPT see my site'). Both the alternative and the selecting condition are named.

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 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Give agents eyes on the webHosted screenshot MCP. Send a URL, get a pixel-perfect image. $0.002 per grab. Works with Claude, Cursor, and Codex.grabbit.liveAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?