Test a WebSocket endpoint (ws:// or wss://): attempts the handshake, reports success/failure, time-to-open in ms, and close code/reason. Useful for verifying a WebSocket server is reachable and completes its upgrade handshake before you wire real traffic to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | WebSocket URL to test, e.g. wss://example.com/socket |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states that the tool attempts the handshake and reports success/failure, time-to-open, and close code/reason. It does not cover timeout or error edge cases, but for a simple connectivity probe the main behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and output fields; the second sentence provides the use-case context. Every clause contributes information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description names the observable results and the intended pre-traffic use case. It does not detail exact response formatting or timeout configuration, but those are minor at this simplicity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers the single parameter with a description and example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds only the explicit ws:// and wss:// scheme mention, which is minor; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Test a WebSocket endpoint'), names the supported schemes (ws://, wss://), and enumerates the exact outputs (success/failure, time-to-open, close code/reason). None of the 28 sibling tools mention WebSocket, so it is clearly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a concrete trigger and context ('before you wire real traffic to it') and the verification goal ('server is reachable and completes its upgrade handshake'). However, it stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it does not reach the full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools audit overlapping site signals (seo_audit vs structured_data_extract vs tech_stack_fingerprint; page_performance_check vs pagespeed_insights; ssl_cert_check vs ssl_labs_grade; broken_link_check vs sitemap_url_validator), so an agent could initially pick the wrong one. Descriptions usually clarify the distinction, but the boundaries are not always obvious.
Most names follow a snake_case target+operation pattern (ssl_cert_check, email_deliverability_check), but check_open_ports and check_robots_sitemap reverse the order, and the action suffixes vary widely (check, audit, validate, lookup, extract, grade, report, insights). Still readable, but not a single predictable convention.
At 29 tools, the server is above the 25-tool threshold and feels like an undifferentiated grab bag of single-purpose audits rather than a tightly scoped toolkit. Many checks could be consolidated (e.g. the separate SSL and performance tools, or domain_report versus its component checks).
For a web/domain/email/security diagnostics toolbelt, the coverage is unusually broad: DNS, TLS, email, SEO, structured data, vulnerabilities, ports, redirects, and more are all represented. Minor gaps exist (no generic HTTP request/debug tool, no zone-transfer or full WHOIS history), but agents can accomplish most diagnostic workflows without hitting dead ends.