agent-readiness

Server Details

Scores any public website on how usable it is by AI agents, with per-check evidence.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.

Status: Healthy
Uptime: 99.9% over 21 days
Last Tested: 2026-09-26 11:41
Transport: Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Scored 2026-09-25 03:10 across 5 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: explaining a check, getting a badge, listing checks, scoring a site, and watching a site. The only mild overlap is between explain_check and list_checks, but their descriptions clearly separate 'what is measured' from 'why a finding matters'.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern: explain_check, get_badge_embed, list_checks, score_site, watch_site. Minor inconsistency: get_badge_embed uses a noun phrase with 'embed' rather than a simple object, but the pattern is otherwise consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for an agent-readiness service: scoring, explaining, listing, badging, and monitoring. Each tool earns its place and the count feels appropriate for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is covered: score a site, understand the score, list checks, display a badge, and set up monitoring. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to retrieve historical scores or manage existing monitoring subscriptions, but the primary use cases are complete.

Available Tools

5 tools

explain_checkExplain one checkA

Read-only

Inspect

Explain one check from the Agent Readiness Score: what it asks, why an agent cares, how it is weighted, and how to fix it. Use after score_site when the user asks why a particular finding matters.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checkId`	Yes	Check identifier, for example content-without-javascript

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`fix`	Yes
`why`	Yes
`docs`	No
`title`	Yes
`pillar`	No
`points`	Yes
`snippet`	No
`question`	Yes
`conditional`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds what the explanation covers, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, dependencies on prior calls, or potential error conditions. The annotation does the heavy lifting here.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence fully defines the tool's scope and output content; the second gives a precise invocation trigger. The description is front-loaded and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what content it returns, and when to call it. Nothing important is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents checkId with an example, so coverage is 100%. The description adds only the context that the check belongs to the Agent Readiness Score, which is marginal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully describes the parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('Explain'), a specific resource ('one check from the Agent Readiness Score'), and enumerates exactly what the explanation includes: what it asks, why agents care, weighting, and remediation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_checks, which enumerate checks, and score_site, which produces the score.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'after score_site when the user asks why a particular finding matters.' This gives a clear trigger condition and temporal context. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is strong.

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

get_badge_embedGet the badge embedA

Read-only

Inspect

Get the HTML snippet for a site's Agent Readiness badge, so it can be placed on that site. Sites at grade C or better earn bronze, silver or gold. Use when the user has a passing score and wants to display it. Returns HTML to paste; it installs nothing and runs no script.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) address, for example example.com

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`host`	Yes
`html`	No
`note`	No
`tier`	No
`grade`	Yes
`score`	Yes
`reason`	No
`watchIt`	No
`eligible`	Yes
`fixFirst`	No
`badgePage`	No
`reportUrl`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 'it installs nothing and runs no script' and 'Returns HTML to paste'. This reassures the agent about side effects and output. It does not detail auth or edge cases, but none are critical here.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, eligibility condition, and safety/output note. The most important information is front-loaded with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers when to use it, eligibility, output type, and safety behavior. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool is missing.

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%, and the single url parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional information about the parameter format or constraints, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'Get the HTML snippet for a site's Agent Readiness badge'. The intended use (placing the badge on the site) is made explicit, and the operation is clearly distinct from the sibling tools explain_check and list_checks even without naming them.

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?

Provides clear conditions for use: 'Use when the user has a passing score and wants to display it', plus eligibility context ('Sites at grade C or better'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

list_checksList the rule setA

Read-only

Inspect

List every check in the rule set with its pillar, weight and question. Use when the user asks what is measured rather than how one site performs.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pillars`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a completeness guarantee with 'every check.' However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or output format, though the output schema may cover some of this.

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 with no wasted words. The action and result content are front-loaded, followed by a practical usage signal. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, the fields included, and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey beyond the empty input schema. The description correctly adds no irrelevant parameter details, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 and resource: 'List every check in the rule set with its pillar, weight and question.' It clearly states the tool's scope and the content of the result, making it distinguishable from siblings like score_site and explain_check.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user asks what is measured rather than how one site performs,' giving clear context for when to choose this tool. It does not name sibling tools directly, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

score_siteScore a site for agent readinessA

Read-only

Inspect

Score a public website for agent readiness. Returns a number out of 100, a grade, the fitness and adoption sub-scores, the highest-value fixes, scan time and whether the result came from cache. Use this first when asked whether a site is agent-ready or WebMCP-ready.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) address, for example example.com

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`axes`	Yes
`host`	Yes
`grade`	Yes
`score`	Yes
`cached`	Yes	True when this request reused a report already in the server cache.
`pillars`	Yes
`excluded`	Yes
`fixFirst`	Yes
`fetchedAt`	Yes	ISO 8601
`reportUrl`	Yes
`methodology`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: results may be cached, a scan time is produced, and only public websites are accepted. It stops short of describing failure modes or prerequisites beyond being public, but the key non-obvious cache behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences: the first states what it does, the second compresses the full return contract, and the third states the exact query that should invoke it. No filler or repeated schema text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description is complete. It covers when to call it, what result shape to expect, and the URL input requirement; the output schema handles detailed return values.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents url as a public http(s) address with an example. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so this is the standard baseline of 3.

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 and resource ('Score a public website for agent readiness') and enumerates the returned artifacts (score out of 100, grade, sub-scores, fixes, scan time, cache flag). It also establishes its role among siblings by saying to use it first for agent-readiness questions, so an agent can distinguish it from watch_site and explain_check.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this first when asked whether a site is agent-ready or WebMCP-ready.' It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, which keeps it just below a top score.

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

watch_siteWatch a site's scoreAInspect

Send a confirmation email for monitoring a site's Agent Readiness Score. Use only when the user explicitly asks to receive a confirmation email for monitoring at the supplied address. Set sendConfirmationEmail to true only then. Monitoring starts only after the recipient opens the link and confirms on the page; this call itself sends one email.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) address or bare host, for example example.com
`email`	Yes	Address that will receive the confirmation and the alerts
`sendConfirmationEmail`	Yes	True only after the user explicitly requests a monitoring confirmation email.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`host`	Yes
`email`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds important behavior beyond annotations: monitoring starts only after the recipient opens the link and confirms, and the call itself only sends one email. This clarifies the side-effect profile beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by usage constraint and behavioral clarification, each earning its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to decide when and how to invoke the tool. It explains the effect, the confirmation precondition, and the parameter constraint.

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 all parameters. The description reinforces the conditional use of sendConfirmationEmail but does not add substantial new parameter meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Send a confirmation email for monitoring a site's Agent Readiness Score.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like score_site and list_checks, which perform scoring or listing rather than sending a confirmation email.

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?

'Use only when the user explicitly asks to receive a confirmation email for monitoring at the supplied address' gives a clear, conditional trigger. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the exclusion is explicit and actionable.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

2 tool updatesSep 25, 2026

Changedscore_site2 fields changed

addedOutput schema / properties / cached

Added value: +{
+  "description": "True when this request reused a report already in the server cache.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "host",
-  "url",
-  "score",
-  "grade",
-  "fetchedAt",
-  "axes",
-  "pillars",
-  "fixFirst",
-  "excluded",
-  "reportUrl",
-  "methodology"
-]New value: +[
+  "host",
+  "url",
+  "score",
+  "grade",
+  "fetchedAt",
+  "cached",
+  "axes",
+  "pillars",
+  "fixFirst",
+  "excluded",
+  "reportUrl",
+  "methodology"
+]

Changedwatch_site2 fields changed

addedInput schema / properties / sendConfirmationEmail

Added value: +{
+  "const": true,
+  "description": "True only after the user explicitly requests a monitoring confirmation email.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "url",
-  "email"
-]New value: +[
+  "url",
+  "email",
+  "sendConfirmationEmail"
+]

1 tool updateSep 8, 2026
- Removedget_agent_stats
1 tool updateSep 8, 2026
- Changedget_agent_stats3 fields changed
  - addedOutput schema / properties / agents / items / properties / bursts
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
  - addedOutput schema / properties / agents / items / properties / unverified
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "Lines claiming this agent from outside its vendor's published ranges; not counted",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
  - addedOutput schema / properties / agents / items / properties / verifiable
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

1 tool updateSep 8, 2026

Changedget_agent_stats2 fields changed

addedOutput schema / properties / bursts

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Recent fetch bursts: one agent fetching several pages within seconds, the footprint of a query fan-out",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "agent": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "at": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "ms": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "paths": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / fetchesFromLogSince

Added value: +{
+  "description": "When set, fetch counts come from the site's server log from this date on",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

1 tool updateSep 8, 2026
- Addedget_agent_stats
5 tool updatesSep 6, 2026
- First observedexplain_check
- First observedget_badge_embed
- First observedlist_checks
- First observedscore_site
- First observedwatch_site

Related MCP Connectors

agentready A
io.github.msanchezgrice
Scan any public site for AI-agent visibility; get scored findings, a machine-readable fix pack, and
Security Web Scraping Penetration Testing
72
agentgauge A
io.github.GlassCaseOfEmotion
Scan any website's AI readiness: AI search visibility and AI agent usability. Free, no auth.
Browser Automation Search Agent Orchestration
12
Myagi - Open Agent Registry A
bot.myagi
Score any website's AI-agent readiness. Open Agent Registry scanner + platform tools.
Browser Automation Agent Orchestration
32
llms.txt Checker - AI Readiness AuditOAuth
io.github.apifymcpfactory-droid
Checks llms.txt, AI crawler access in robots.txt, and sitemap - with a 0-100 AI readiness score.
Web Scraping Browser Automation AI & Machine Learning
2

Related MCP Servers

agent-readiness-auditor
Web Scraping Security
asish-singh
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
Scans a website to score its compatibility and safety for AI agents, and exposes an audit tool via the Model Context Protocol.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-12 00:08 UTC)
55 npm
1
MIT
ASO Score MCPofficial
Developer Tools Search
forgemeshlabs
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
Scans websites to evaluate agent-readiness and produce an ASO Score Report across 34 signals, helping improve discoverability, trust, and interoperability for AI agents.
Updated 25 days ago (2026-09-01 18:42 UTC)
4
5
66 npm
1
MIT
AI Readiness
epistemedeus
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Check whether a website is visible to AI search engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Google AI Overviews). Returns a 0-100 readiness score, a grade, and a specific fix for each gap. Dependency-free, no API keys.
Updated 19 days ago (2026-09-07 06:54 UTC)
2
8 npm
MIT
ai-visibility-scanner
Browser Automation Web Scraping Marketing
edelgad3
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables scanning any website for AI agent compatibility and marketing health, returning interactive dashboard reports with scores and revenue impact estimates.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-04-29 00:49 UTC)
-