Identify the technology stack and services used by a website. Returns framework names, CMS platform, JavaScript libraries, analytics services, CDN provider, hosting provider, and security tools detected. Use for competitive analysis, vendor intelligence, or understanding site architecture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website URL to analyze (e.g. 'https://www.example.com') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds value by specifying what will be returned (framework names, CMS, analytics, etc.). It does not contradict the annotations. This is sufficient for a read-only detection tool.
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, front-loaded with the primary action and return value. No extraneous content; every clause 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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states input, output categories, use cases, and the read-only nature. No significant gaps remain.
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 schema already covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'url'. The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 the specific verb 'Identify' with resource 'technology stack and services used by a website', and enumerates the detected categories (frameworks, CMS, libraries, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_dns or check_ssl, which focus on different technical aspects.
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 states use cases: 'Use for competitive analysis, vendor intelligence, or understanding site architecture.' While it doesn't mention when not to use or name alternatives, the stated context is clear and the division of labor among siblings is obvious.
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 aspect of web analysis: DNS records, SSL certificates, website crawling, technology detection, and WHOIS data. There is no overlap in purpose, so an agent can easily select the right tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_dns, check_ssl, crawl_website, detect_tech_stack, lookup_whois. The verbs and nouns are clear and consistently formatted with underscores.
Five tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool serves a distinct, necessary function for the server's stated purpose. The toolset feels cohesive and neither bloated nor sparse.
The toolset covers core web analysis domains: DNS, SSL, crawling, tech stack, and WHOIS. Minor gaps exist, such as missing page speed or robots.txt analysis, but these are not critical for basic SEO and web analysis workflows.