scan_urlRun an AgentReady scan of a public URL. Returns the 0-100 score, per-phase findings, top priorities, and the Fix Pack v2 implementation contract. Repository paths remain candidate targets until a connected-repository resolver proves them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public site URL (https://example.com) | |
| publish_report | No | Create an unlisted, expiring public report link. Defaults to false. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses useful non-obvious behavior: the output includes a score, per-phase findings, top priorities, and the Fix Pack contract, and repository paths remain provisional until a resolver confirms them. But it does not mention side effects around publish_report, rate limits, permissions, or potential costs. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and only partially satisfies it.
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 three sentences long, front-loads the scan action, and adds exactly three useful things: the result components, the Fix Pack contract, and the provisional repository-path caveat. It is compact, though the final sentence contains jargon that may be dense for a new agent.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains the key return surfaces: score, findings, top priorities, and the Fix Pack contract. It does not explain how sibling tools relate or which return value feeds subsequent calls, but for invocation with one required parameter the core calling context is sufficiently defined.
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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the word 'public' to the URL context and does not enrich either parameter with extra syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema states.
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 opens with a specific action ('Run an AgentReady scan') on a specific resource ('public URL') and lists the concrete outputs returned. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_fix_pack, get_public_report, and verify_fixes tools, which are clearly about retrieving or verifying rather than running a new scan.
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 intended use is broadly clear: call this when you need to scan a public URL. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives such as get_fix_pack or verify_fixes, requiring the agent to infer the decision context from the tool purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct artifacts: OpenAPI, A2A cards, crawler access, saved reports, and fix verification. The main ambiguity is between scan_url and get_fix_pack, since both scan a public URL and return fix-pack-related output, though scan_url emphasizes the full score/findings while get_fix_pack focuses on prioritized fixes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: audit_, check_, get_, scan_, validate_, verify_. The verbs are appropriate and the naming makes the intended action readable at a glance.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a URL and API readiness scanning server. Each tool addresses a distinct phase or artifact in the workflow: scanning, fix generation, fix verification, report retrieval, and specialized static audits.
The core lifecycle is covered: scan a URL, obtain fixes, verify fixes, and retrieve reports, plus specialized audits for OpenAPI, A2A, and crawler access. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to list or manage saved public reports and no explicit repository-connection tool, but these are workable.