Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

pageaudit

by online.pageaudit
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get audit

get_audit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Re-read an audit with its findings and evidence. Use generate_fix_prompt for correction steps. Re-reading costs nothing and does not count against the allowance — the page's HTML is not kept, but the report is.

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": {
      "guest_token": "<guest_token>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAudit ID, from `Audit.id`.
guest_tokenYesPrivate owner token returned by guest creation. Sent in X-Guest-Token; reuse it for this owner's resources.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"Audit ID, from `Audit.id`."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding genuinely new behavior: no cost, no allowance consumption, and a retention detail (page HTML is not kept, the report is). It omits failure behavior, e.g. what happens with an expired or foreign guest_token.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the routing hint, then the cost/retention note. The gratis point is stated twice ('costs nothing' and 'does not count against the allowance'), a minor redundancy that could be compressed.

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 two-parameter, fully documented read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the sibling alternative, and the cost/retention model. The only gap is the return shape, which is partly implied by 'findings and evidence' and 'the report'.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are documented there (audit ID source, X-Guest-Token header usage). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the burden.

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 plus the payload ('with its findings and evidence'), so the agent knows this retrieves a full audit report. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the write-side siblings audit_site/audit_url, but the 're-read' framing implies an existing audit rather than a new scan.

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 names the alternative explicitly — generate_fix_prompt for correction steps — and states the cost condition that makes re-reading preferable (free, outside the allowance). It stops short of stating the precondition (a guest_token/audit must already exist) or what to do when the ID is unknown.

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