Robots-aware website audits, pre-crawl quotes, and structured evidence for people and agents.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: starting audits, deleting, estimating, status checking, listing checks, and starting paid audits. No functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., audit_url, delete_audit, estimate_audit). No mixing of conventions.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for an auditing service, covering the essential operations without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full audit lifecycle: estimation, free/paid start, status, and deletion. Minor gap: no tool to list all audits for a user.
audit_urlStart a WebsiteIQ auditAInspectStarts the free bounded, robots-compliant audit of one public HTTP(S) page. No account, email, or contact consent is required. One free audit is allowed per requester IP and per target website each day. When payment is available, an abuse-limited call returns the exact sitemap-priced x402 PaymentRequired result and accepts a compatible retry through _meta['x402/payment']; otherwise it returns a quote preview. WebsiteIQ never pays target sites and never bypasses robots.txt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public website URL to audit. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| ok | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| pageCap | Yes | |
| reportUrl | Yes | |
| statusUrl | Yes | |
| retentionPolicy | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral details: no account/email required, daily rate limits, payment behavior (x402 response), and ethical constraints (never pays targets, respects robots.txt). This fully informs the agent about side effects and restrictions.
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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads key points. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description is comprehensive: covers purpose, limitations, payment behavior, and ethical stance. It is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly without ambiguity.
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 describes 'url' as a public website URL, and the description adds that it must be HTTP(S) and that the audit is robots-compliant and bounded. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the schema coverage is 100%.
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 explicitly states it starts a free bounded, robots-compliant audit of one public HTTP(S) page. It distinguishes from siblings like start_paid_audit and get_audit_status by specifying the free nature and limitations.
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 clear context on when to use the tool: for free audits, no account needed, one per IP/website per day. It mentions the daily limit and payment behavior but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delete_auditDelete auditBDeletes the retained request metadata, generated report, and delivery record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| accessToken | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| deleted | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations by listing the specific data items destroyed (retained request metadata, report, delivery record). However, it does not disclose irreversible nature beyond what is implied by 'delete' or the 'destructiveHint' annotation. No additional behavioral details like permission requirements or side effects are provided.
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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and targets. No extraneous information is included, and the structure is front-loaded and efficient.
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 the presence of an output schema (handling return values) and annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description covers the action adequately. However, it lacks context about reversibility, confirmation steps, or typical usage flow, which would benefit agent decision-making.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain the 'id' or 'accessToken' parameters. The description only mentions what is deleted but fails to clarify the role of these parameters, leaving the agent without semantic understanding of required inputs.
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 ('Deletes') and specifies the exact resources deleted (retained request metadata, generated report, delivery record). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'estimate_audit' (which creates/estimates) and 'get_audit_status' (which retrieves status), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or scenarios where deletion should be avoided. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
estimate_auditGet a whole-site audit quoteABefore audit crawling, reads robots.txt and a bounded same-host sitemap tree—including namespaced, WordPress, and Yoast-style indexes—then returns page scope plus standard and white-label USDC quotes. Up to 10 pages cost $0.01 standard or $0.02 white-label; each additional page costs $0.001 or $0.002. A payable quote includes the quoteId required by start_paid_audit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public website URL whose robots-permitted sitemap should be counted. | |
| branding | No | Required when whiteLabel is true. | |
| whiteLabel | No | Return the white-label quote as selectedQuote. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| url | Yes | |
| quoteId | Yes | |
| quoteStatus | Yes | |
| quotePayable | Yes | |
| paymentStatus | Yes | |
| pricingNotice | Yes | |
| pricingStatus | Yes | |
| selectedQuote | Yes | |
| standardQuote | Yes | |
| estimatedPages | Yes | |
| quoteExpiresAt | No | |
| whiteLabelQuote | Yes | |
| estimateComplete | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it reads robots.txt, traverses sitemaps, discloses pricing logic, and clarifies the output format. No contradiction with annotations.
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 well-structured sentences with no wasted text. Critical information is front-loaded, and each sentence serves a distinct purpose.
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 the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, how pricing works, and the connection to start_paid_audit. No gaps remain.
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?
While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by contextualizing the URL as 'robots-permitted sitemap' and explaining the branding parameter's role in white-label quotes. This supplements the schema's descriptions.
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 purpose: before an audit crawl, it reads robots.txt and sitemaps, then returns page scope and pricing quotes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the quoteId needed for start_paid_audit.
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 use before starting a paid audit and mentions the required quoteId. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like list_checks or get_audit_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_audit_statusGet audit statusBReturns the privacy-filtered status of an audit. The access token returned by audit_url is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| accessToken | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| ok | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| reportUrl | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds that the status is 'privacy-filtered' and that an access token is required, providing some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any further behavioral traits (e.g., what 'privacy-filtered' means, how the token is used, or potential errors). Given the annotation coverage, the description adds moderate value, earning a 3.
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 concise sentences with no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second states a critical prerequisite. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. Score 5 for maximum conciseness.
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 the presence of an output schema (not detailed here, but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool has two required parameters and lacks explanation for the 'id' parameter, which is crucial for invocation. The sibling context (e.g., 'audit_url') is partially addressed via the prerequisite, but the overall completeness is moderate. Score 3 reflects the gap in describing the 'id' parameter.
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 input schema has two required parameters with no descriptions (schema coverage 0%). The description only explains the 'accessToken' parameter's source ('returned by audit_url') but does not clarify the 'id' parameter (likely an audit identifier). This provides partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions, but still leaves one parameter unexplained, resulting in a score of 2.
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 that the tool returns the 'privacy-filtered status of an audit', specifying the resource and action (get status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_audit' or 'start_paid_audit', but could explicitly contrast with 'list_checks' for completeness. The verb and resource are specific enough for a 4.
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 mentions a prerequisite ('The access token returned by audit_url is required'), which gives some context for when to use this tool (after obtaining the token). However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it, nor does it reference alternative sibling tools (e.g., when to use 'list_checks' instead). This lack of comparative usage guidance limits the score to 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_checksList WebsiteIQ checksAReturns the current public audit categories and scoring caveat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| checks | Yes | |
| scoringNote | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds minimal extra context by mentioning 'public' and 'scoring caveat', but does not detail any behavioral nuances beyond the annotations.
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value with no fluff.
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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately explains its return (audit categories and scoring caveat). No gaps identified.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 is appropriate; description adds no parameter info but none is needed.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns current public audit categories and scoring caveat. It aligns with the title and distinguishes from sibling tools that perform audits or manage audit results.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like audit_url or get_audit_status. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
start_paid_auditPay for and start a quoted auditAStarts the exact robots-aware whole-site scope represented by a current quoteId. If payment is absent, returns an x402 v2 PaymentRequired result. A compatible MCP client retries with _meta['x402/payment']; WebsiteIQ verifies the required payment identifier, settles exact USDC, and returns the existing job on safe replay.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quoteId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| ok | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| pageCap | Yes | |
| payment | Yes | |
| quoteId | Yes | |
| reportUrl | Yes | |
| statusUrl | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: payment requirement via x402, idempotent replay, and returning existing job. It aligns with annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint).
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 four sentences, front-loading the core action. It includes necessary technical details about x402, though some jargon could be simplified without losing meaning.
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 the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers payment behavior and idempotency. It mentions returning an existing job on replay, though lacks explicit success response details.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the 'quoteId' parameter, but only mentions it in passing. The pattern in the schema provides some guidance, but the agent lacks context on how to obtain the quoteId.
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 uses a specific verb ('Starts') and resource ('audit') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'audit_url' and 'estimate_audit' by requiring a quoteId and payment.
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 explains the payment flow and idempotency, providing context for when to use. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state prerequisites like obtaining a quoteId from 'estimate_audit'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
