Agent Ready
Server Details
Scan any URL for AI agent readability — Vercel Spec, llmstxt.org, and agent-protocol manifests.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- mlava/agent-ready-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 1
- Server Listing
- Agent Ready
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
The three tools serve clearly distinct purposes: ask for natural-language search, scan_site for initiating scans, and get_scan for retrieving results. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase with underscores (ask, get_scan, scan_site), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 3 tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for the server's purpose: scanning websites and querying documentation. Each tool earns its place.
The core workflow (scan, retrieve results, search content) is covered, but lacking a way to list past scans or discover scan IDs beyond the initial response, which may cause minor friction.
Available Tools
3 toolsaskAsk Agent Ready in natural languageARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Natural-language search (NLWeb /ask) over Agent Ready's own content — scoring methodology, the check registry, the specs it validates, and the content library (explainers, comparisons, how-to guides, glossary). Returns Schema.org-typed result objects. Optional itemType narrows to a corpus type; mode 'summarize' adds an extractive summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Natural-language question to search Agent Ready's docs, scoring methodology, check registry, and content library (explainers, comparisons, how-to guides, glossary). | |
| mode | No | "list" (default) returns matching items; "summarize" returns a synthesized answer. | |
| itemType | No | Restrict results to a content type: methodology, checks, specs, llms-txt, check, page (explainers/guides/glossary), or any (default: all types). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| message | No | Extractive summary when mode is 'summarize'. |
| results | Yes | Matching result items (Schema.org-typed). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). The description adds value by specifying return type ('Schema.org-typed result objects') and explaining optional mode behavior ('summarize adds an extractive summary'), which goes beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: first states core purpose, second mentions return type, third explains optional parameters. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the most important info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 params, output schema exists, annotations cover safety), the description covers scope of content, return format, and parameter behavior completely. Output schema handles return details, so no gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so parameters are already documented. The description reinforces parameter meaning by stating 'Optional itemType narrows to a corpus type; mode 'summarize' adds an extractive summary', adding context beyond the schema's descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a natural-language search over Agent Ready's content (scoring methodology, check registry, specs, content library), with a specific verb ('ask') and resource scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (get_scan, scan_site) which are for scanning, not searching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions optional parameters (itemType, mode) and their effects, giving usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings; the context of 'natural-language search' and the sibling names imply it, but explicit differentiation could improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_scanGet a previous scan by idARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetches a completed or in-progress scan by its id. Only scans owned by the authenticated API key's user are returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The scan id returned by scan_site (also the share token in a /scan/<id> URL). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The scan id. |
| status | Yes | Scan status: running, completed, or failed. |
| pollUrl | No | Poll URL while the scan is still running. |
| rootUrl | No | The scanned site URL. |
| shareUrl | No | Path to the shareable report (/scan/<id>). |
| vercelScore | No | Vercel agent-readability score (0–100); null while running. |
| llmstxtScore | No | llms.txt score (0–100). |
| pagesScanned | No | Number of pages scanned. |
| vercelRating | No | Rating band for the Vercel score. |
| pagesDiscovered | No | Number of pages discovered. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context that only scans owned by the authenticated user are returned, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a comprehensive output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and access restrictions. It could mention the output format briefly, but the output schema handles that. Overall, it is complete for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it fetches a scan by id, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ask' or 'scan_site', which could create ambiguity about which tool to use in different scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by noting that only scans owned by the user are returned, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_site' or 'ask'. No when-not-to-use or exclusionary conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_siteScan a site for AI agent readabilityARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Runs the agent-ready.dev scanner against a URL and returns structured results: Vercel score, llmstxt.org score, and per-check findings with remediation hints. Scans may take up to ~60s; for larger scans the tool returns a scan id and asks you to poll with get_scan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full URL of the site to scan, e.g. https://example.com. Must be a public http(s) address. | |
| pageLimit | No | Maximum number of pages to crawl. Defaults to your tier's per-scan page limit when omitted. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The scan id. |
| status | Yes | Scan status: running, completed, or failed. |
| pollUrl | No | Poll URL while the scan is still running. |
| rootUrl | No | The scanned site URL. |
| shareUrl | No | Path to the shareable report (/scan/<id>). |
| vercelScore | No | Vercel agent-readability score (0–100); null while running. |
| llmstxtScore | No | llms.txt score (0–100). |
| pagesScanned | No | Number of pages scanned. |
| vercelRating | No | Rating band for the Vercel score. |
| pagesDiscovered | No | Number of pages discovered. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable behavioral context: scan latency (~60s), potential need for polling (returning scan id). This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is two sentences, front-loaded with core action and results, followed by behavioral note. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, full annotations, an output schema (not shown), and sibling tools, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its results, and special behavior (polling). No obvious gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (url, pageLimit) are well-described in schema. The description does not add new param details but provides overall context of scanning and results structure (Vercel score, etc.), which is helpful but not adding to param semantics significantly. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it scans a URL for AI agent readability, listing specific output scores (Vercel, llmstxt.org). It distinguishes from sibling tools (ask, get_scan) by noting that for larger scans it returns a scan id and asks to poll with get_scan, establishing a clear role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides explicit guidance on usage: scans may take ~60s, for larger scans it returns a scan id and instructs to poll with get_scan. This covers timing and fallback behavior. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context with siblings and polling hint is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.