scan_websiteRun a free SimplyScan security & speed scan of a deployed web app URL. Returns a 0-100 score and findings (exposed secrets, missing Supabase RLS, frontend leaks, speed issues). Best for apps built with Lovable, Bolt, v0, Cursor, Replit, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full https URL to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the scan is free and uses SimplyScan, implying an external service, and describes the output (score and findings). No behavioral traits contradict 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?
The description is two sentences long. The first sentence states purpose and output; the second provides a usage hint. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
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 one required parameter, no output schema, and sibling tools being more specific, the description covers the tool's purpose, output (score and findings), and suggests ideal use cases. It lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., URL must be deployed) but is sufficient for selecting between this and siblings.
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% with one parameter 'url' having format and description 'Full https URL to check'. The description's 'deployed web app URL' adds minimal additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter well.
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 the tool runs a security and speed scan on a deployed web app URL and returns a score and findings. It distinguishes from siblings by being a broader scan covering multiple aspects like secrets, RLS, frontend leaks, and speed issues, while siblings are specific checks (e.g., check_security_headers, check_ssl).
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 includes a usage hint: 'Best for apps built with Lovable, Bolt, v0, Cursor, Replit, etc.', implying when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the sibling tools serve as alternatives for specific checks. The guidance is clear but could be more explicit about exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of website analysis: AI visibility, email security, exposed files, security headers, SEO, SSL, and a general scan. No two tools overlap in purpose, making it easy for an agent to select the right one.
Six of seven tools follow the 'check_<subject>' pattern, which is clear and consistent. The outlier 'scan_website' breaks the pattern but is still understandable. Overall, naming is predictable with a minor deviation.
Seven tools is an appropriate number for a website scanning/analysis server. It covers key areas (security, SEO, AI visibility) without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place by addressing a specific need.
The tool surface covers major website concerns: security (headers, SSL, exposed files, email), SEO, and AI visibility. The general 'scan_website' tool likely fills gaps like performance and secrets. Missing some niche checks (e.g., accessibility), but the core is well-covered.