Sitelemetry

Full audit (all pillars, one score)

audit_full

Run Security, SEO, AI-visibility, Integrations, Accessibility and Performance in parallel and return a blended grade, each pillar summary, and prioritized cross-pillar findings with evidence and fixes. Best for a complete health check or an audit-fix-retest loop.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Report language (default en): en, tr, es, de, fr, pt, it, ja, zh.
`target`	Yes	Target website URL or domain you own / are authorized to audit (e.g. https://example.com).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`total`	Yes	Total cross-pillar findings before response truncation.
`counts`	Yes	Finding totals grouped by normalized severity.
`target`	Yes	Canonical audited target.
`blended`	Yes	Weighted score across measured pillars, or null when no pillar could be measured.
`pillars`	Yes	Per-pillar score and finding-count summary.
`complete`	Yes	True only when every requested pillar completed successfully.
`findings`	Yes	Prioritized findings across every completed audit pillar.
`failedPillars`	Yes	Pillars that could not be measured and their sanitized errors.
`returnedFindings`	Yes	Number of cross-pillar findings included.
`findingsTruncated`	Yes	True when additional findings exist outside this response.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail: runs pillars in parallel and returns a blended grade plus additional summaries. However, it does not clarify what kind of side effects or writes might occur despite readOnlyHint=false, and it doesn't mention any authentication/rate-limit backend. Not a contradiction but a minor gap.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the pillars and all key outputs; the second gives a concrete use case. Every sentence contributes.

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 available, the description doesn't need to list every field. It covers scope (all pillars), what is returned, and when to choose this tool. It could also mention that a full audit is heavier than running one pillar, but the "full" name and sibling tool list already hint at that tradeoff.

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 coverage is 100%; both 'target' and 'lang' already have descriptive text. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond operating on a URL and report language. That is sufficient given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Run' with an explicit resource: all six audit pillars in parallel. It clearly enumerates the pillars and the deliverables (blended grade, each pillar summary, prioritized cross-pillar findings with evidence and fixes), making the tool unmistakably distinct from the single-pillar sibling tools.

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?

The description states when to use it: 'Best for a complete health check or an audit-fix-retest loop.' This gives a clear context, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use the individual audit_* tools when only one pillar is needed.' The sibling names and 'full' tag imply the trade-off.

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

All Sitelemetry tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each audit tool targets a distinct dimension of site health (accessibility, AI visibility, integrations, performance, security, SEO), with audit_full explicitly composing them. The boundaries are clearly described, so there is no realistic ambiguity in choosing which tool to invoke.

Naming Consistency5/5

All seven tools follow the exact same verb_noun snake_case pattern with audit_ as a prefix, followed by a descriptive domain element. This creates an entirely predictable and consistent naming convention.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is a well-scoped count for a site auditing server: six specialized audits plus one composite full audit. No tool feels redundant, and the set is neither too thin nor too heavy for its stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all major established audit domains—accessibility, AI visibility, integrations/unwanted trackers, SEO, performance, and security. The full audit ties everything together with summaries and fixes, creating a complete audit-fix-retest lifecycle without obvious gaps.

Resources

Need Help?