Detect the technology stack used by a website (frameworks, CMS, analytics, payment, hosting, security, marketing tools).
Wraps nexgendata/wappalyzer-replacement. Drop-in replacement for
the discontinued Wappalyzer API — returns categorized technology
detections with version + confidence info.
Args: domain: Domain or full URL (e.g. "stripe.com" or "https://stripe.com").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that it wraps another tool and returns categorized detections with version+confidence info, which is useful context beyond annotations.
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?
Very concise: two sentences plus arg example. No redundancy, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given simple input (1 param, read-only) and no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool does and returns (categorized detections with version+confidence). Could mention pagination or limits, but not essential.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides clear guidance for the 'domain' parameter with example formats, adding meaning beyond the schema's mere type declaration.
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?
Clearly states it detects technology stack of a website, listing categories. Distinct from sibling tools that focus on company profiles, leads, etc.
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?
Explicitly says it's a drop-in replacement for Wappalyzer API, guiding users familiar with that. However, no explicit when-not or comparison to alternatives among siblings, which are clearly different in domain.
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 sales intelligence function: from company profiling, tech detection, hiring signals, to lead finding and enrichment. Even the two enrichment tools (enrich_company vs. aggregate_company_profile) are clearly differentiated by depth and features.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., aggregate_company_profile, detect_tech_stack, find_b2b_leads). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
10 tools is well-scoped for a sales intelligence server, covering the full pipeline from prospecting to enrichment and signal detection. It's neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The tool set covers end-to-end sales research: lead generation, company enrichment, tech stack detection, hiring signals, email finding, YC directory, job search, and funding tracking. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.