SiteCheck

Detect the technologies a website uses

tech

Read-only

Website technology detection: CMS, e-commerce platform, analytics, tag managers, CDN, hosting, chat, payments, A/B testing, consent tools and the e-mail provider, each with version, confidence 0-100 and evidence, from 231 own fingerprints over the home page, headers, cookies and the domain's MX/TXT records. For lead filtering and competitor research. Price: $0.003 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": "tech"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Website URL or domain, e.g. example.com

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cdn`	No
`cms`	No
`url`	No
`note`	No
`count`	No
`domain`	No
`status`	No
`blocked`	No
`hosting`	No
`finalUrl`	No
`analytics`	No
`ecommerce`	No
`tagManagers`	No
`technologies`	No
`emailProvider`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "analytics": {},
+    "blocked": {},
+    "cdn": {},
+    "cms": {},
+    "count": {},
+    "domain": {},
+    "ecommerce": {},
+    "emailProvider": {},
+    "finalUrl": {},
+    "hosting": {},
+    "note": {},
+    "status": {},
+    "tagManagers": {},
+    "technologies": {},
+    "url": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Beyond that, the description adds material context the annotations cannot carry: a metered price of $0.003 USDC per successful call, the x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Arc), and the important guarantee that failed calls are not charged. It also discloses the fingerprint methodology (231 own fingerprints across home page, headers, cookies, MX/TXT), though it does not discuss rate limits or latency.

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?

Everything is packed into one dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the capability and ends with pricing, so the most decision-relevant facts come first. It is long, but each clause (categories, sources, fingerprint count, confidence scale, price, failed-call policy) carries distinct information, leaving little true 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 one-parameter tool with a full output schema, complete annotations and rich schema coverage, this description covers everything an agent needs: what is detected, from which signals, what the output contains (version, confidence 0-100, evidence), and the cost model. Nothing required 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.

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single url parameter is already documented as a website URL or domain. The description adds only marginal semantic value by revealing that detection reads the domain's MX/TXT records, which confirms a bare domain is an acceptable input form. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Website technology detection") and then enumerates exactly what is detected: CMS, e-commerce, analytics, tag managers, CDN, hosting, chat, payments, A/B testing, consent tools and e-mail provider. It also states the detection surface (home page, headers, cookies, MX/TXT), which separates it cleanly from siblings like headers, meta, dns and domain.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives intended use cases ("For lead filtering and competitor research"), which implies when an agent should reach for it, but it names no alternative. It never says to use headers or dns instead when the agent only needs raw headers or DNS records, so routing must be inferred from sibling names.

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

All SiteCheck tools Inspect

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.