Scores a website's online presence 0-100 and lists the top issues to fix. English/Arabic.
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.
Average 4.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
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.
scan_websiteScore a business’s online presenceAInspectScore 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?
The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing important side effects: 'This starts a live scan and creates a lead for the Kashif team, who follow up with the full written report by email.' It also explains the audit components in detail, giving the agent a clear picture of what happens during execution. The readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true are consistent with this live-scan/lead-creation behavior, and no contradictions exist.
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 efficient, with the main purpose and output stated in the first sentence. It includes a structured list of audit areas and a clear trigger phrase. While slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence example, each sentence earns its place, and the structure is well-organized for scanning.
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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, process, side effects, parameter roles, and usage triggers. The audit areas and the lead-generation behavior are fully explained, leaving no major gaps for an agent to infer.
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% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'Give it a website (and an email to send the full report to)' maps directly to the required url and email parameters, and it clarifies the email's role in lead delivery. It doesn't elaborate on the optional name and language parameters, but those are adequately described in the schema and are optional, so the description supplements rather than replaces schema info.
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 ('Score') and a concrete resource ('a business's online presence'), stating it produces a 0-100 score and names the top issues. This clearly distinguishes the tool's function and is not a mere tautology. The scope is explicit: auditing online presence including search visibility, AI readiness, mobile speed, trust, and contact options.
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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use it whenever someone asks to audit, check, review, grade or improve a company's website or online presence.' This is clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though no sibling tools exist, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable but not fully complete.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!