Zovo Website Status Checker

Check websites

check_websites

Read-onlyIdempotent

Makes live requests from the Zovo edge network to up to 10 public URLs and reports each verdict, redirect chain, HTTP status, response time, TLS, page title and security headers, plus a CSV download. Use for a current availability, redirect or status check. It cannot check zovo.one or its subdomains, IP literals, private or reserved addresses, or ports other than 80 and 443. Sites can block automated checks. Do not use for monitoring or uptime history.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "check_websites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes	The websites to check, 1 to 10. Each entry is a domain such as example.com or a full http(s) address, e.g. ["example.com", "https://www.cloudflare.com"].

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`up_count`	Yes
`downloads`	Yes
`checked_at`	Yes
`down_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description still adds substantial context beyond them: requests originate from the Zovo edge network, zovo.one and its subdomains are off-limits, IP literals and private/reserved addresses are rejected, only ports 80/443 are supported, and sites may block automated checks. These are exactly the failure modes an agent needs to know before calling.

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 what the tool does and what it returns, then the constraints, then the anti-use case — a logical order with no filler. The single paragraph is dense but every sentence carries distinct constraints; minor tightening possible around the output enumeration.

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?

Covers capability, output surface, hard restrictions (domains, address classes, ports), and a known reliability caveat (blocking), which is everything needed to call it correctly. An output schema exists, so the description's brief output listing is a bonus rather than a required return-value spec.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting formats, min/max items and the 2048-char limit. The description restates the cap of 10 public URLs but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Makes live requests from the Zovo edge network to up to 10 public URLs') and enumerates exactly what it reports: verdict, redirect chain, HTTP status, response time, TLS, title, security headers, CSV. This is immediately distinguishable from a monitoring tool and from a header-only checker.

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?

Gives explicit positive guidance ('Use for a current availability, redirect or status check') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use for monitoring or uptime history'), which is strong. It does not name the sibling check_security_headers as the alternative for header-focused work, so routing between the two is left to inference.

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

All Zovo Website Status Checker 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.

Resources

Need Help?