HolicAudit website checks

Full site crawl (paid)

full_site_crawl

Read-onlyIdempotent

Crawls up to 25 pages of a public site (from its XML sitemap, or homepage links) and checks each for title, meta description, H1, canonical, noindex, html lang, Open Graph, thin content and HTTP errors, plus site-wide duplicate titles and descriptions. Requires a paid API key (Authorization: Bearer , $15 per 3 months): https://audit.huutran.dev/mcp-server#pro

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "full_site_crawl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Site or homepage, e.g. example.com
`max_pages`	No	Pages to check (1-25, default 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: a required Bearer API key at a specific price, and the crawl source fallback (XML sitemap, else homepage links). It stops short of describing pagination, what happens when no sitemap exists, or the response shape, which matters because there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the auth/price prerequisite isolated in a second sentence where it belongs. The enumeration of checks is long but each item is load-bearing for the decision; little is wasted.

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?

For a paid, multi-page crawl with no output schema, the description covers scope, inputs, check list, auth, and cost — enough for an agent to decide and invoke. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., no sitemap and no links), rate limits, or what the result payload contains.

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%, so both parameters are already self-documenting, and the description's 'up to 25 pages' merely restates the maximum. It does add mild clarity that 'url' means a site or homepage (domain-level input) and that the crawl origin depends on sitemap availability, but that is marginal value over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('crawls up to 25 pages of a public site') and enumerates the exact checks performed (title, meta description, H1, canonical, noindex, html lang, Open Graph, thin content, HTTP errors, plus site-wide duplicate detection). Scope ('site-wide', multi-page, 25-page cap) implicitly separates it from single-URL siblings, but no sibling is named, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied by the scope and the paid-tier gate, but the description never states when to prefer this over seo_check, bulk_check, or compare_competitors. The only explicit routing signal is the paid-key prerequisite ($15 per 3 months), which tells the agent about cost, not about when the tool is the right choice.

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

All HolicAudit website checks tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?