RegSentry Website Tracking Inspector

Inspect site tracking setup

inspect_site_tracking

Read-onlyIdempotent

Performs a bounded, non-persisting GET of an authorized public domain's homepage and reports tracker markup, consent setup signals, and runtime-verification gaps. It does not run JavaScript, submit forms, create a RegSentry record, or make a legal determination.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Public domain only, such as example.com. Do not include a path or query.
`authorizationAcknowledged`	Yes	Must be true to confirm the user owns or is authorized to inspect this domain.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`trackers`	Yes
`disclaimer`	Yes
`httpStatus`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`finalHostname`	Yes
`consentSignals`	Yes
`dynamicLoaders`	Yes
`consentManagers`	Yes
`consentSetupState`	Yes
`runtimeVerificationRequired`	Yes
`trackersRequiringRuntimeVerification`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / trackers / items / description

Added value: +"A static HTML tracker reference; runtime firing and violations are not established."

removedOutput schema / properties / trackers / items / properties / violating
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / trackers / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "category",
-  "violating"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "category"
+]

First observedSep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it does NOT run JavaScript, submit forms, create a RegSentry record, or make legal determinations, and it explicitly notes 'runtime-verification gaps' — meaningful caveats about what the fetch will and won't reveal.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states what it does, the second lists what it deliberately does not do. Front-loaded with the positive capability, no redundant text.

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?

Complete enough for a 2-param, read-only fetch tool with an output schema present (return values need not be described). The negative-capability list closes the biggest behavioral gaps. The only missing element is explicit routing relative to sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the authorization const and domain format. The description adds only the 'authorized public domain' framing, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('bounded, non-persisting GET of an authorized public domain's homepage') and enumerates exactly what is reported (tracker markup, consent setup signals, runtime-verification gaps). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling tools, which are about remediation and consent-evidence interpretation rather than direct fetching.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies scope via the authorization requirement and the negative list, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus interpret_consent_evidence or get_remediation_playbook. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use routing is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All RegSentry Website Tracking Inspector tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?