Free passive scan of a public B2B SaaS website. Returns bottleneck scores (visibility, trust, conversion, scale), the primary public growth blocker, and top fix priorities. Passive only: no credentials, no production access. Full signed diagnosis with deploy-ready fix packs is a flat $490 at prooflayered.com/app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public company URL, e.g. https://example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It clearly states the tool is passive, requires no credentials or production access, and scans only public websites. This discloses all relevant behavioral traits for an agent to use safely.
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, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key outputs, then adds behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything needed: what it does, its passive nature, and what it returns. No gaps.
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 only parameter 'url' has a schema description that already explains it. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 clearly states it performs a 'free passive scan of a public B2B SaaS website' and specifies the outputs: bottleneck scores, primary growth blocker, and fix priorities. The verb 'scan' and resource 'public B2B SaaS website' are specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly notes it is 'passive only: no credentials, no production access,' setting clear usage boundaries. It also mentions the paid full diagnosis option as an alternative, but does not exclude other potential use cases due to lack of sibling tools.
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.
With only one tool, there is no risk of confusion. The tool's purpose is clearly described and distinct by default.
A single tool named 'growth_bottleneck_scan' follows a clear verb_noun pattern consistent with itself.
One tool is borderline for a server; while the tool is not trivial, the scope feels thin. A few more tools (e.g., for viewing past scans) would be expected.
The server offers only a single scan operation. Missing lifecycle operations like listing, retrieving, or managing scans. The user is directed to an external site for paid results, creating a dead end.
