Skip to main content
Glama

Kashif — Website Audit

by net.bottletech.kashif

Score a business’s online presence

scan_website

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe business’s website, e.g. example.com or https://example.com.
nameNoOptional: the person or business name, used to label the lead.
emailYesAn email address to send the full written report to. Required — this is a lead for the team.
languageNoReport language: "en" (default) or "ar" for Arabic.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYesPlain-language context about the score and the full report to come.
scoreYes0-100 online-presence score, or null until the quick pass finishes.
statusYes"ready" = quick score below; "processing" = still running, report follows; "failed" = site could not be checked.
websiteYesThe website that was scanned.
findingsYesThe top issues to fix first, most urgent first.
whatsappYesA WhatsApp link to reach the Kashif team about this business.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

All Kashif — Website Audit toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool named scan_website, the naming follows a clear verb_noun pattern and there are no inconsistencies to evaluate.

Tool Count3/5

The server has only one tool, which feels thin for a website audit service that likely involves ongoing tracking or multiple report types. However, the tool is substantial in scope, weakening the negative impact of the small count.

Completeness2/5

The tool covers a single action (starting a scan) but lacks complementary operations like retrieving past audits, checking scan status, or managing leads. This creates notable gaps for a complete workflow.

Resources