pageaudit

Generate fix prompt

generate_fix_prompt

Prepare a coding-agent prompt from an owned report. One check uses one unit; full uses three. Three units are free once. Then US$0.10 per unit, or included in an active PageAudit plan. Read prompt_allowance first. Only send credit_token after explicit spending authorization; preserve request_id for retries. Use the assembled instructions instead of copying findings and building a prompt yourself. No model call is needed to generate it. Review placeholders and proposed changes before applying them. Evidence comes from the saved audit, not the repository. Use verification with the same owner to compare fixed and new findings after the change. Free audits already include findings; the prompt does not fix the site for you.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "scope": "<scope>",
      "language": "<language>",
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "generate_fix_prompt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Owned saved audit ID.
`scope`	Yes	check or full.
`check_id`	No	ID from the report's checks; required for check, absent for full.
`language`	Yes	Language of the prompt instructions and check names: en for English, pt for Portuguese.
`request_id`	Yes	New UUID v4 per generation. Keep it unchanged for retries.
`guest_token`	No	Private owner token returned by guest creation. Sent in X-Guest-Token; reuse it for this owner's resources.
`credit_token`	No	Prepaid cred_… token. Requires explicit user authorization.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / guest_token / description

Added value: +"Private owner token returned by guest creation. Sent in X-Guest-Token; reuse it for this owner's resources."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / credit_token

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Prepaid cred_… token. Requires explicit user authorization.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already cover safety profile and openness; the description adds real context beyond them: per-scope billing units, free allowance, no model call being made, evidence sourced from the saved audit rather than the repository, and the request_id retry contract. That is substantive supplement, though the response contents (prompt text, placeholder list) are only hinted at.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A strong purpose-first opening, but the rest is a flat run of eleven sentences mixing pricing, auth, review advice, evidence sourcing, and post-change verification with no grouping. Each fact earns its place individually, yet the lack of structure makes the cost and authorization rules easy to lose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paid, non-idempotent, seven-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers cost model, auth, idempotency/retry, evidence source, and follow-up verification. What remains thin is what the caller actually receives, such as the instructions and the list of placeholders, which is only implied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining that scope 'check' consumes one unit and 'full' consumes three. It also reinforces request_id reuse for retries and the authorization condition on credit_token, adding meaning the schema only states tersely.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare a coding-agent prompt from an owned report.' The word 'report' implicitly separates it from generate_site_fix_prompt and generate_domain_fix_prompt, but the description never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names prerequisites (read prompt_allowance first), an authorization gate for credit_token ('only after explicit spending authorization'), and a follow-up path ('use verification with the same owner to compare fixed and new findings'). It also warns against a competing approach: build the prompt yourself.

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

All pageaudit 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.