Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Readiness scorer — can an agent sign up to your SaaS?

by io.github.agentwares
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

readiness_request_scan

Step 2. Verifies domain ownership (DNS TXT / meta tag / .well-known must carry the token from readiness_get_verification_token), then queues a Playwright probe that tries to sign up, accept the terms and mint an API key with no human. Returns the scan id and the public results URL. Fails with DOMAIN_NOT_VERIFIED (with instructions) or RATE_LIMITED (3 scans per host per day). Never solves CAPTCHAs.

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": "readiness_request_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic https URL of the SaaS signup (or landing) page, e.g. https://example.com/signup

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds rich behavioral detail well beyond them: it performs domain ownership verification via DNS TXT/meta tag/.well-known, queues a no-human Playwright probe, signs up, accepts terms, mints an API key, and never solves CAPTCHAs. It also documents failure modes and rate limits, which is exactly the additional context an agent needs.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded, starting with 'Step 2' and the core action. Every sentence carries actionable information: prerequisites, queued behavior, return values, error codes, rate limits, and CAPTCHA limitation; no sentence is wasted.

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 a mutation-style, open-world operation with no output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers prerequisites, side effects, return identifiers, error conditions, rate limiting, and a critical limitation. An agent can invoke and interpret this tool correctly without needing further documentation.

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?

There is one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the required public signup/landing URL. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it verifies domain ownership and queues a Playwright signup probe, returning a scan id and public results URL. It clearly differentiates itself from readiness_get_verification_token by naming the required token source, and its role as 'Step 2' places it precisely in the workflow.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: it is Step 2, it requires the token from readiness_get_verification_token, and it fails with DOMAIN_NOT_VERIFIED with instructions. It does not explicitly mention when to use readiness_get_scan versus relying on the returned public results URL, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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

All Readiness scorer — can an agent sign up to your SaaS? toolsInspect
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