Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

pageaudit

by online.pageaudit
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get API X402 audit

get_api_x402_audit

Audits one page for an agent, paid per call: no account, no allowance and no tab. The report of POST /api/audit, sold per call to agents. A request without payment gets the 402 with the price; a paid one gets the report in the same response, with the payment in cobranca. Nothing is stored: the report has no id and no tab. A page that does not open is not charged. Writing and maintaining a page fetcher, HTML checks and a report schema. The audit rules run without an LLM. This is not a browser performance or accessibility test. A technical score does not prove ranking, revenue or the absence of security defects.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "get_api_x402_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe page to audit, `http` or `https`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but say nothing about billing semantics; the description supplies that: a 402 with price on unpaid requests, report plus payment details in `cobranca` on paid ones, nothing persisted (no `id`, no tab), and no charge when the page fails to open. That is substantive context beyond the structured fields. It stops short of rate limits or how payment is actually attached to a retry.

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?

The opening sentence front-loads the core purpose well, but the middle degenerates into fragments ('Writing and maintaining a page fetcher, HTML checks and a report schema') whose subject is unclear, and the browser-test disclaimer is buried late. Several clauses restate the no-account/no-storage point.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description only gestures at the response ('the report', 'the payment in `cobranca`') without saying what the report contains or how failures are surfaced apart from the non-charge rule. For a one-shot paid audit consumed by an agent, the missing shape of the returned report is the main gap.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already states the URL and its http/https constraint. The description adds no syntax, normalization or URL-scope detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 description names a specific verb and resource — auditing a single page URL — and marks it out from the account-based siblings by stating 'paid per call: no account, no allowance and no tab'. It also rules out adjacent interpretations ('not a browser performance or accessibility test'). It never names audit_url or audit_site directly, so the agent must infer which sibling to prefer.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The payment model ('sold per call to agents', 402 on unpaid request, report on paid request) implies when this tool applies, and the negative framing ('not a browser performance test') narrows it. However there is no explicit 'use this instead of audit_url when you have no account' routing, no prerequisite statement, and no guidance on what to do with the 402 response.

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

All pageaudit toolsInspect
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.

Resources