Skip to main content
Glama

ZadenWorks

by io.github.ZadenGG

audit_sitemap

Audit a site's crawlability from robots.txt and its XML sitemaps: whether robots.txt exists, whether it blocks all crawlers, which sitemaps it declares, whether those parse as valid XML, how many URLs they list, whether entries carry lastmod dates, and whether a live sample of those URLs actually respond. Returns a 0-100 score, a letter grade, a severity and a prioritised issue list. Accepts a bare domain. Up to 2 sites per call. Paid: $0.02 per call in USDC on Base via x402 -- call once without x_payment to receive the payment challenge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sitesYesSites to audit (max 2); a bare domain is fine
x_paymentNoOptional X-PAYMENT header value from a completed x402 payment. Omit on first call to receive the payment challenge; complete the payment with your x402 wallet tooling, then retry with this set.
maxUrlsToSampleNoHow many sitemap URLs to spot-check for a live response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.02), the first-call challenge, the site limit, the sampling limit (maxUrlsToSample), and the output structure (score, grade, severity, issue list). This is highly transparent.

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 description is detailed but not excessively verbose. It lists the audit checks and then the return/limit/payment aspects in a logical order. Some redundancy with the schema exists, but it remains appropriately sized for the complex behavior.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return type and the payment flow. It covers all necessary invocation context (limits, payment, sampling) and is complete for an agent to understand and call the tool.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; for example, the x_payment flow and bare-domain note already appear in the schema parameter descriptions.

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 'Audit' and the precise resource ('site crawlability from robots.txt and XML sitemaps'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like audit_seo (broader SEO) and check_links (link checking) by focusing on sitemap/robots checks.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance, including the payment challenge flow (call once without x_payment, then retry with it) and the site limit (max 2). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like audit_seo, but the domain-specific wording makes when-to-use sufficiently clear.

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

All ZadenWorks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from SEO audits to link checking, content comparison, accessibility scans, structured data validation, and claim verification. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names mostly follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (audit_seo, check_links, compare_pages). Minor deviations like rank_x402_services and list_rank_categories are slightly less uniform but still readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools cover a broad but focused range of web page analysis and auditing workflows without feeling bloated. The count is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a specialized service.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for the domain: covers SEO, sitemaps, links, content, rendering, accessibility, structured data, claims, and monitoring. No critical dead ends or obvious missing operations for typical use cases.

Resources