Agent-Readiness Audit

scan_site

Run a free rubric v3 agent-readiness teaser on a public site. Pricing earns full points only when a price is readable without signing in. Returns the score, rubric version, category breakdown, and a link to the scan.

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": "scan_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public site URL or domain, such as https://stripe.com

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`score`	Yes
`reason`	No
`status`	Yes
`scanUrl`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes
`hostname`	Yes
`categories`	Yes
`rubricVersion`	Yes	Rubric that produced this score. New scans are v3.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / rubricVersion

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Rubric that produced this score. New scans are v3.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "hostname",
-  "status",
-  "score",
-  "verdict",
-  "categories",
-  "scanUrl"
-]New value: +[
+  "hostname",
+  "status",
+  "score",
+  "verdict",
+  "rubricVersion",
+  "categories",
+  "scanUrl"
+]

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious traits: the scan is free, it is a 'teaser' (i.e., partial), and pricing points depend on the price being readable without sign-in. It also enumerates the return payload. What's missing is operational behavior such as latency, rate limits, or whether repeated scans are cached.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The list of return values is arguably redundant with the output schema, but it is compact enough that no sentence feels wasteful.

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 single-parameter tool with a full output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what is scanned, what a score means at a high level, and what comes back. The gap is that 'teaser' implies a fuller rubric version or scan exists, yet no path to it is named.

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% and the url field already carries an example (https://stripe.com), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the constraint that the target must be a public site, which is a modest semantic gain 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?

States a specific verb and resource: run an agent-readiness scan on a public site, returning a score against 'rubric v3'. That is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (get_index_rank, list_index), though the description never explicitly says so. The term 'teaser' is introduced without explanation, slightly blurring what is actually produced.

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?

'Public site' implicitly excludes private/authenticated targets, which is useful scoping. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a full (non-teaser) scan would be preferred, and no stated prerequisites beyond the URL being public.

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

All Agent-Readiness Audit 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?