Orivox AI Website Builder

copy_website_extract

Only call this after the user has explicitly confirmed they own or have rights to copy the source website's content -- never assume.

confirm_rights MUST be a literal JSON boolean (true/false). Measured in review: FastMCP validates tool arguments through pydantic BEFORE this function body ever runs, and pydantic's default (lax) bool coercion silently turns 1/"yes"/"true"/"on"/etc. into a real True -- at which point tool_logic's own strict is not True check can no longer tell the difference. StrictBool rejects anything that isn't a genuine boolean at that same validation boundary, closing the gap instead of relying on a downstream check that a lax type already defeated.

Imports an existing website by URL: scrapes 1-8 pages (pass page_urls manually, or crawl_domain to auto-discover up to max_pages same-domain pages) and downloads/compresses their images. No AI rebuild happens yet. This is step 1 of 2 -- pass the returned job_guid to copy_website_rebuild next.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`max_pages`	No
`page_urls`	No
`design_mode`	No
`crawl_domain`	No
`project_guid`	Yes
`confirm_rights`	No
`index_page_url`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedAug 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / project_guid
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
removedInput schema / properties / project_id
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "project_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_guid"
+]

First observedAug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: it scrapes 1-8 pages, can auto-discover pages, compresses images, and does not rebuild the site. It also explains the strict boolean requirement for confirm_rights, which is a subtle but important runtime behavior.

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 somewhat long but each sentence serves a purpose: safety precondition, strict boolean explanation, workflow, and parameter hints. The strict-boolean rationale is a bit verbose, but it is directly relevant to avoiding a validation pitfall. Overall, it is structured and does not waste words.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations, the description provides strong workflow and behavior context, including the fact that this is step 1 of a two-step process. Still, it omits explanation of the only required parameter project_guid as well as design_mode and index_page_url, so an agent may not fully know how to call it correctly in all cases.

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 0%, so the description is needed to explain parameters. It gives useful semantics for confirm_rights, page_urls, crawl_domain, and max_pages, and mentions the job_guid output. However, it does not explain the required project_guid parameter or the design_mode and index_page_url parameters, leaving notable gaps.

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 states exactly what the tool does: imports an existing website by URL, scrapes 1-8 pages, and downloads/compresses images. It also clearly differentiates the tool from its sibling by stating 'No AI rebuild happens yet' and positioning it as 'step 1 of 2' with copy_website_rebuild as the next step.

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?

The description gives an explicit precondition: only call after the user has confirmed ownership/rights. It also clearly states when this tool fits in the workflow and directs the agent to pass the returned job_guid to copy_website_rebuild next, making the choice between siblings unambiguous.

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

All Orivox AI Website Builder 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.

Resources

Need Help?