Categorized v2 agent-readiness audit (6 categories, site-type-aware, CrUX). Output: { url, score, maxScore, grade, siteType, categories[], version: 2 }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already present, the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that this is a categorized, site-type-aware audit using CrUX data and by disclosing the exact output shape. It does not contradict the annotations, and these details go beyond the structured fields.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs useful output details. Minor redundancy exists in repeating 'v2' and stating 'Categorized' while also listing '6 categories', but overall it is efficiently structured.
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?
There is no output schema, so listing the output fields is valuable, but the description leaves several operational details unclear: which six categories are included, what CrUX-based assessment means, and how score/maxScore/grade are defined. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is acceptable but not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single url parameter. It indirectly implies that the URL is the site to audit, but it does not explicitly explain URL requirements such as public accessibility or expected URL format beyond the schema's uri type.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a v2 agent-readiness audit and distinguishes it from the sibling forgekit_ship_verify by adding 'Categorized', '6 categories', 'site-type-aware', 'CrUX', and an explicit v2 output field. The resource being audited and the audit nature are both evident.
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, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives like forgekit_ship_verify. While the v2 label implies this is the newer audit, the agent is not told when to choose this over the sibling or other forgekit tools.
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.
ship_verify and ship_verify_v2 are near-synonyms, and ship_bundle wraps ship_pack plus an audit while evidence_pack combines screenshot/PDF/HTML. The descriptions help, but an agent could easily pick the wrong granularity or version.
All tools use the forgekit_ prefix and snake_case, but verb placement is inconsistent: business_days_add/count place the noun first, evidence_pack has no verb, and the ship_* group mixes noun and verb senses. The set is readable but not uniformly patterned.
Fifteen tools is near the upper end of a reasonable utility-kit size, and most tools are individually useful. It feels slightly over-scoped because ship_verify_v2 and ship_bundle partially duplicate other capabilities rather than adding clearly new operations.
The web/media surface is broadly covered with screenshots, PDFs, QR encode/decode, OG previews, evidence packs, and agent-readiness audits. However, the set is an eclectic collection rather than one coherent workflow, and there are gaps such as no MCP-level polling for async jobs and no history/retrieval for evidence packs or ship bundles.