Scores a website's online presence 0-100 and lists the top issues to fix. English/Arabic.
Scored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another tool. The purpose is singular and clearly described.
The single tool name 'scan_website' follows a clear verb_noun structure. With only one tool, consistency is inherently maintained.
At one tool, the server feels thin. However, the tool is substantive rather than trivial, so it doesn't warrant the lowest score, but it is borderline under-scoped.
The tool covers the core function of auditing a website's online presence and returns a score plus top issues. The only minor gap is that the full report is delivered via email rather than programmatically, but this is a deliberate design choice.
Score how well a business shows up online, out of 100, and name what is hurting it most. Give it a website (and an email to send the full report to) and it runs Kashif's audit of the business's online presence: whether customers can find them in search, whether AI assistants can read and recommend them, how fast the site feels on a phone and the first impression it makes, how trustworthy it looks, and how easy the business is to reach (WhatsApp, phone, a contact form). Returns a 0-100 score with the top issues to fix first. Use it whenever someone asks to audit, check, review, grade or improve a company's website or online presence. This starts a live scan and creates a lead for the Kashif team, who follow up with the full written report by email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The business’s website, e.g. example.com or https://example.com. | |
| name | No | Optional: the person or business name, used to label the lead. | |
| Yes | An email address to send the full written report to. Required — this is a lead for the team. | ||
| language | No | Report language: "en" (default) or "ar" for Arabic. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | Plain-language context about the score and the full report to come. |
| score | Yes | 0-100 online-presence score, or null until the quick pass finishes. |
| status | Yes | "ready" = quick score below; "processing" = still running, report follows; "failed" = site could not be checked. |
| website | Yes | The website that was scanned. |
| findings | Yes | The top issues to fix first, most urgent first. |
| Yes | A WhatsApp link to reach the Kashif team about this business. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: 'This starts a live scan and creates a lead for the Kashif team, who follow up with the full written report by email.' This discloses side effects (lead creation) and the fact that it's a live operation, going beyond the 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 longer than average but every sentence contributes: purpose, audit criteria, output, usage trigger, and side effect notification. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently packs information without fluff. Slightly verbose but well-structured, hence a 4.
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's complexity (live scan, lead creation, 4 parameters, output schema), the description covers the action, inputs, output format, and side effects. Since an output schema exists, the return values are sufficiently covered. It gives the agent everything needed to invoke correctly in context.
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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that url and email are required inputs, but it does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The email's role as 'required for report delivery' is a slight addition, but not enough to raise the score.
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 verb and resource: 'Score how well a business shows up online, out of 100, and name what is hurting it most.' It clearly outlines the audit dimensions and the output. Even without siblings, the purpose is unmistakable and distinct from generic tools.
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?
It states exactly when to use the tool: 'Use it whenever someone asks to audit, check, review, grade or improve a company's website or online presence.' This is explicit and provides strong triggering guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it misses the full bar of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
scan_websiteScores a website's online presence 0-100 and lists the top issues to fix. English/Arabic.
Scan any URL for on-page, technical & content SEO; 0-100 score with copy-paste fixes.
Free website analyzer: score any public URL 0-100 across 8 quality dimensions. No auth.
Scan any public site for AI-agent visibility; get scored findings, a machine-readable fix pack, and
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
