CrunchJunkie

run_site_audit

Start an SEO audit crawl of the client's own website (its host and the www twin only). Our crawler (CrunchJunkieSiteAudit) reads robots.txt first and obeys it, asks for at most one page a second, and keeps derived facts only. It uses the workspace's page allowance (no money is charged); the preview states the pages it may request, the allowance left and when the period ends, the estimated duration and, for a site's first audit, the attestation the user confirms (then pass attest:true). One running crawl per client; a few starts per client per day while in preview. Requires write actions and "Allow actions that spend AI" (it starts billable work), and counts toward the assistant-started spend actions per day. Without confirm:true it returns a preview; get_site_audit follows the crawl.

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": {
      "clientId": "<clientId>"
    },
    "name": "run_site_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`attest`	No	true = the user confirmed they are authorised to audit this website on its owner's behalf (asked at the first audit of a site, and again when the website changes).
`confirm`	No	true starts the crawl. Omit to preview. With confirm:true, also pass the preview's previewToken.
`clientId`	Yes	Client id (from list_clients).
`previewToken`	No	With confirm:true: the previewToken from this tool's preview (valid 15 minutes, once, for exactly the previewed arguments).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: robots.txt compliance, ~1 page/second pacing, derived-facts-only retention, page-allowance consumption with no money charged, one-crawl-per-client limit, preview content, and the required write/AI-spend permissions with daily spend-action counting. This is exactly the kind of cost, rate-limit and prerequisite disclosure an agent needs before a billable, open-world action.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and its scope, then layers limits, cost, permissions and the preview/confirm flow. It is dense and slightly run-on (multiple clauses per sentence), but essentially every clause carries actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a high-stakes, open-world, non-read-only action with no output schema and no annotations covering safety/cost, the description supplies the preview contents, the attestation step, the confirm/attest/token mechanics, and the follow-up tool. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first try.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all four parameters, but the description adds real workflow meaning: confirm:true vs. omitted preview, attest:true tied to the first audit of a site, and the previewToken flow. It reinforces rather than merely repeats the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Start an SEO audit crawl") plus the exact scope ("the client's own website — its host and the www twin only"). The sibling set contains several overlapping crawl/scan tools (run_scan, run_geo_audit, create_site_audit_task, get_site_audit), and this description makes clear which one actually starts the site audit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete operating context: one running crawl per client, a few starts per day in preview, and the preview-first flow ("Without confirm:true it returns a preview"). It points at the follow-up tool ("get_site_audit follows the crawl") and the stop path exists as a sibling, though it does not explicitly say when to use stop_site_audit versus this tool.

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

All CrunchJunkie 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?