7IT Solutions

Test store speed on a phone

test_store_speed

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when someone asks how fast a website or online store loads on a phone, why it is slow, or how it compares with a competitor. Runs Google PageSpeed Insights (mobile lab test) on a public online store or website and explains the result in plain English: a 0 to 100 score, when the main content appears, responsiveness and layout shift, real-user data when Google has it, the third-party apps and trackers slowing the page (by name, with size and busy time), the platform (Shopify, WooCommerce and others), and the fixes ranked by time saved. Optionally tests up to two competitor sites for a side-by-side comparison. Takes 20 to 60 seconds. Only public web addresses are accepted.

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": "test_store_speed"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The store or website to test, for example "example.com" or "https://shop.example.com/products/item".
`competitors`	No	Up to two competitor sites to test at the same time for comparison.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`store`	Yes	The tested store
`benchmark`	No	Where the score stands against the US Store Speed study
`report_url`	Yes	Shareable full report
`competitors`	Yes	Competitors tested side by side, if any

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "benchmark": {
+      "description": "Where the score stands against the US Store Speed study"
+    },
+    "competitors": {
+      "description": "Competitors tested side by side, if any",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {
+          "host": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "host"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "report_url": {
+      "description": "Shareable full report",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "store": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "The tested store",
+      "properties": {
+        "host": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "score": {
+          "description": "Google phone performance score, 0 to 100",
+          "type": [
+            "number",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "host"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "store",
+    "competitors",
+    "report_url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 1, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what annotations cannot: an expected runtime ("Takes 20 to 60 seconds") and an input constraint ("Only public web addresses are accepted"), plus what the result will contain.

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?

The trigger condition and core behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the cost/time caveats are placed last. The middle enumeration of result fields (score, main content, layout shift, third-party apps, platform, fixes) is slightly long and partly duplicates the output schema, but each item is informative rather than filler.

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 two-parameter read-only analysis tool with an output schema, an agent has everything needed: trigger conditions, URL constraint, competitor limit, latency expectation, and an overview of the returned analysis. No gaps remain that would cause a misinvocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `url` and `competitors` are already documented in the schema. The description restates that competitors are optional and capped at two for a side-by-side comparison, which matches maxItems: 2 without adding new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Runs Google PageSpeed Insights (mobile lab test) on a public online store or website") plus the exact output domain. The mobile-lab framing and public-URL scope distinguish it from the sibling get_store_speed_index without opening either schema.

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?

"Use this when someone asks how fast a website or online store loads on a phone, why it is slow, or how it compares with a competitor" gives concrete trigger conditions and covers the comparison case. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g., when to prefer get_store_speed_index instead), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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

All 7IT Solutions tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?