Outrings Web Intelligence

List what a page contains

get_site_inventory

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return a complete inventory of what the Outrings collector observed on a page: not a sample of it: for one kind of thing: internal links, external links, sitemap URLs, email addresses, scripts, images, forms, iframes, stylesheets or API endpoints referenced. The collector does not execute JavaScript, so this is everything present in the served HTML and the responses it fetched, which is not necessarily everything a real browser would end up loading at runtime. Use it for "what third-party scripts am I loading", "which email addresses are exposed on my site", "how many images are missing alt text", "what does my page link out to".

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>",
      "inventory": "<inventory>"
    },
    "name": "get_site_inventory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The website to inspect. A bare domain works: "example.com" is treated as https://example.com.
`limit`	No	Cap the rows returned. The total count is always reported.
`inventory`	Yes	Which listing to return. internalLinks and externalLinks are URLs; externalDomains is the deduplicated hosts they point at; endpoints are API paths found in scripts; discovered are paths seen in sitemaps and robots.txt; exposedProbe is the result of probing commonly exposed paths.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`rows`	No	Shape depends on the inventory: a list of URLs or strings, or an object keyed by host with counts.
`total`	Yes	Rows observed, before any limit.
`returned`	No	Rows in this response.
`inventory`	Yes

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": {
+    "inventory": {
+      "enum": [
+        "internalLinks",
+        "externalLinks",
+        "externalDomains",
+        "sitemapUrls",
+        "emails",
+        "phones",
+        "forms",
+        "scripts",
+        "iframes",
+        "styles",
+        "images",
+        "endpoints",
+        "icons",
+        "discovered",
+        "exposedProbe",
+        "crawledPages"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "returned": {
+      "description": "Rows in this response.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "rows": {
+      "description": "Shape depends on the inventory: a list of URLs or strings, or an object keyed by host with counts.",
+      "oneOf": [
+        {
+          "items": true,
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Rows observed, before any limit.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "url",
+    "inventory",
+    "total"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world behavior, so the description's job is to add more — and it does: it discloses that the collector does not execute JavaScript, so results reflect served HTML rather than runtime browser state. That is a material caveat an agent must know before interpreting results, and it is stated plainly.

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 core claim is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a crucial caveat and then illustrative use cases. The item enumeration is long but functional; nothing is wasted, though the second sentence runs on.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key limitations (no JavaScript execution, exhaustive but static). Minor gaps remain around the crawl-related inventories ('discovered', 'crawledPages') whose scope is only partly explained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a genuine semantic constraint by framing the call as returning one kind of thing at a time, implying multiple calls are needed for a full picture. It does not elaborate on the limit/pagination behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence gives a precise verb and resource ('return a complete inventory of what the collector observed on a page') and enumerates exactly what kinds of items are covered, so an agent knows this is a raw listing tool rather than a scored audit. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with siblings like audit_website or get_score, leaving that distinction inferential.

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?

Four concrete example questions ('what third-party scripts am I loading', 'which email addresses are exposed') give a clear sense of when to reach for this tool. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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?