tools_website_status_checkerFree public API. Check if a website is up or down. Returns HTTP status, response time, final URL after redirects, basic SSL info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to check (include scheme). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | Always true here; failures return an isError result instead. | |
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Whether the site is up, with timing and basic SSL info.",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "contentType": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "finalUrl": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "responseTimeMs": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "server": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "ssl": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "daysUntilExpiry": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "issuer": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "valid": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "valid",
+ "daysUntilExpiry",
+ "issuer"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "HTTP status; 0 if the request failed.",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "statusText": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "up": {
+ "description": "true when the status is below 500.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "url",
+ "up",
+ "status",
+ "statusText",
+ "responseTimeMs",
+ "ssl"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "description": "Always true here; failures return an isError result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that redirects are followed ('final URL after redirects') and that the API is free/public, but says nothing about rate limits, timeouts, or what threshold counts as 'down'.
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?
Three short sentences, the core capability is front-loaded, and no sentence is filler. The 'Free public API' note earns its place as a cost/auth signal.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, most of what an agent needs is present. The gap is the absence of any definition of a 'down' result or timeout behavior, which matters for interpreting the call.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with an in-schema note to include the scheme. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Check if a website is up or down') and enumerates the return fields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like tools_domain_connect_checker, tools_redirect_checker, or tools_ssl_check, all of which touch the same signals.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative tool. With 17 network/DNS siblings, an agent gets no help deciding between this and the connect, redirect, or SSL checkers.
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.