Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Web Scan

by io.github.ankitkumarjha515
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Verify fixes

verify_fixes
Read-only

Re-scan a URL after you deployed fixes and report, per check id, whether it now passes (fixed: true), plus the new score, the previous score, what is still failing with its fix, and allFixed. Use this after a change reaches production (or a public preview) instead of asking the user to re-scan. Pass the check ids from the scan or fix prompt; with none, every failing or warning check is returned. If a fix you made still shows fixed: false, the deploy may not be live yet or a CDN may be serving a cached page: wait about a minute and call again before concluding the fix failed.

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": "verify_fixes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe production or preview URL that was fixed.
checksNoCheck ids to verify, e.g. ["og:image", "hsts"]. Optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes well beyond by disclosing the full return contract (there is no output schema) and the important caveat that stale CDN caches or a non-live deploy can produce a false negative. That caching guidance is genuine behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then usage, then default behavior, then troubleshooting — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is on the long side because it enumerates every returned field, but each clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return contract itself, plus the optional-parameter default and a recovery path for false negatives. For a two-parameter verification tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both params are documented, so the schema does the baseline work. The description still adds real meaning: the default behavior when 'checks' is omitted (all failing or warning checks returned) and the provenance of the ids ('from the scan or fix prompt'), which is not in the schema.

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 and resource — re-scan a URL after fixes deploy and report per check id whether it passes — with the return shape (fixed, new score, previous score, still-failing, allFixed) enumerated. This clearly separates it from scan_url (initial scan) and get_report (reporting), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use it ('after a change reaches production (or a public preview) instead of asking the user to re-scan') and how to scope it ('pass the check ids from the scan or fix prompt; with none, every failing or warning check is returned'). It even covers the negative outcome path: what to conclude when a fix still reports fixed: false.

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

All Web Scan 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