scan_websiteRun the free structural AI-readiness preview for a public website the user owns or is authorized to assess. Returns a score, grade, readiness pillars and the lowest suitable SYA package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public website URL or domain, for example https://example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds the fact that the tool is free and returns specific outputs. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, caching, or side effects beyond what annotations imply. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description consists of two clear, front-loaded sentences. Every word serves a purpose: it specifies the action, authorization requirement, and output components. No unnecessary details.
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 robust annotations, the description covers the essential context: authorization requirement, output details, and that it's a free preview. It is nearly complete, though slightly more detail on what 'readiness pillars' are could help.
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 input schema has 100% coverage (one parameter 'url' with description). The description simply restates it as 'Public website URL or domain', adding no new semantic information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already does the work.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the resource ('public website') and the action ('structural AI-readiness preview'). It explicitly lists the returned data (score, grade, readiness pillars, package). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'explain_readiness_score' or 'get_sample_report'.
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 states the tool is for websites the user owns or is authorized to assess, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after scanning, use 'explain_readiness_score' for details). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: scanning, explaining scores, listing packages, getting links, and sample reports. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., scan_website, list_packages), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of website readiness assessment. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy or unnecessary complexity.
The tool surface covers the entire workflow: scanning, understanding scores, exploring packages and pricing, and viewing sample reports. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.