Identify the technology stack and services used by a website. Returns framework names, CMS platform, JavaScript libraries, analytics services, CDN provider, hosting provider, and security tools detected. Use for competitive analysis, vendor intelligence, or understanding site architecture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website URL to analyze (e.g. 'https://www.example.com') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read operation) and openWorldHint=true (may discover unexpected information). The description aligns by listing what it returns and does not indicate any destructive behavior. It adds value by listing specific detected categories, though it omits potential limitations like false negatives.
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 two sentences: the first explains purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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 simple tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description covers purpose, output categories, and use cases. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'url', including an example format. The description adds no new information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool's verb ('Identify') and resource ('technology stack and services used by a website'), and lists specific outputs (framework names, CMS, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_dns or crawl_website by focusing on tech stack detection.
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 provides explicit usage contexts ('competitive analysis, vendor intelligence, or understanding site architecture') but does not mention when not to use or compare directly with siblings. The context is clear and helpful.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of web analysis: DNS records, SSL certificates, full website crawling, technology stack detection, and WHOIS data. There is no ambiguity in their purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_dns, check_ssl, crawl_website, detect_tech_stack, lookup_whois. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
5 tools is appropriate for a focused SEO and web analysis server. It covers the core areas without being excessive or too thin, though a couple more could be added.
Covers DNS, SSL, crawling, tech stack, and WHOIS, but misses common SEO tools like HTTP header inspection, robots.txt/sitemap analysis, or page speed evaluation. Notable gaps exist.