scan_websiteRun an AgentGauge agent-readiness scan of a website. Grades whether AI search can find/cite it and whether AI agents can use/transact with it, against the AgentReady standard. Returns the grade, both gauges, every check with its status, and a link to the full report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The website URL or domain to scan, e.g. "example.com" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool performs a scan (non-destructive) and returns grading details, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any required permissions. The context is adequate for a scan tool.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second details the output. Efficient and well-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?
Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (grade, both gauges, every check, link to report). It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it produces.
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 coverage is 100% (url parameter described with example). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
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 action ('Run an AgentGauge agent-readiness scan'), the resource ('a website'), and the specific metrics graded (AI search find/cite, AI agents use/transact). It effectively distinguishes the tool's purpose even without siblings.
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 implies usage context (assessing a website's AI readiness) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. Given no siblings, a clear usage statement would be beneficial.
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.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity between tools. The single tool has a clearly defined purpose.
The single tool uses a verb_noun pattern ('scan_website'), which is consistent and readable. No other tools to compare against.
Only one tool is provided, which is borderline for the scope. While the tool itself is comprehensive, a single tool feels thin for a server that could potentially offer more granular operations.
The tool fully covers the server's stated purpose of scanning websites for agent readiness, returning all relevant data. No obvious gaps are present.