Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

WebLens

by dev.weblens
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

company_profile

A company profile from its domain, read live from its own site: what it sells and to whom, pricing and plans, NAICS sector, self-reported head count band, open roles from its Greenhouse/Lever/Ashby board, tech stack, socials, security.txt role contacts, and the domain's registrar, age, email provider, SaaS vendors and SPF/DMARC posture. Each AI-read field names its source page; coverage flags show what was found. Price: $0.05 (70% off when served from cache)

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "company_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cacheNoServe a cached copy when one exists (cached responses are 70% off)
domainYesThe company's website domain, e.g. "vercel.com". A full URL is accepted and reduced to its hostname.
cacheTtlNoHow long to cache this response, in seconds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that data is read live from the target's own site, that each AI-read field names its source page, that coverage flags indicate what was found, and that calls cost $0.05 with 70% off from cache. It does not cover failure modes (invalid/unreachable domain, timeouts) or rate limits, which is the main residual gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and nothing is redundant. However, the return-value inventory is delivered as one very long comma-separated sentence rather than a structured list, which makes it harder to scan for a specific field.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values itself, and the field inventory plus the provenance/coverage-flag note do that adequately for an agent to decide whether the result answers its question. The omission of failure behavior and any indication of latency or result size keeps it from being fully complete.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds little parameter-level detail, though the '$0.05 / 70% off when served from cache' line reinforces the trade-off behind the cache flag.

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 opening clause ('A company profile from its domain, read live from its own site') names the resource and the retrieval mechanism, and the enumerated contents (NAICS, headcount band, Greenhouse/Lever roles, security.txt contacts, registrar/SPF posture) make its scope distinct from single-purpose siblings like detect_tech or domain_intel. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over detect_tech, domain_intel, deep_research, or crawl_site, even though those siblings overlap on tech stack and domain facts. The only decision-relevant guidance is the cost note, which tells the agent about pricing but not tool selection.

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

All WebLens toolsInspect
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