Outrings Web Intelligence

Get a website score

get_score

Read-onlyIdempotent

The cheapest useful call: overall score, letter grade and every category score, with no findings or prose. Use it when comparing sites, when the user only wants a number, or as a first step before deciding which category to look into.

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": "get_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The website to inspect. A bare domain works: "example.com" is treated as https://example.com.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`grade`	Yes
`score`	Yes	Overall score out of 100.
`auditedAt`	No
`categories`	Yes	Category id to score. Null where nothing was determinable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / url / description

Previous value: -"The website to inspect. A bare domain works — \"example.com\" is treated as https://example.com."New value: +"The website to inspect. A bare domain works: \"example.com\" is treated as https://example.com."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "auditedAt": {
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "categories": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "description": "Category id to score. Null where nothing was determinable.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "grade": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "Overall score out of 100.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "url",
+    "score",
+    "grade",
+    "categories"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that this is the cheapest call and deliberately omits findings and prose — which tells the agent what a response will and will not contain. It stops short of describing latency or any rate/cost limits beyond the qualitative 'cheapest'.

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?

One tightly packed sentence plus one usage sentence, both front-loaded with the highest-value information (what you get, then when to pick it). No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety; combined with the description's cost and contents disclosure, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly. The only gap is that the sibling landing page (compare_websites) is not addressed, leaving mild ambiguity for the comparison use case.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents the bare-domain normalization to https://. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable at this coverage level and parameter count.

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 exactly what the call returns — overall score, letter grade, every category score — and explicitly what it does not return (findings, prose). That negative framing separates it from audit_website and check_category without requiring the agent to open other schemas.

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?

Gives three concrete selection conditions (comparing, number-only requests, first step before drilling into a category), the last of which routes cleanly to check_category. However, it never names compare_websites, and 'when comparing sites' could plausibly pull an agent toward that sibling instead of clarifying the split.

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

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

Need Help?