Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Live-checks whether a WordPress site is ready to be safely operated by AI agents.

Ownership verified
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
renduples/sitepassport-mcp
GitHub Stars
0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap. The tool's purpose is singular and clearly defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

The name 'check_wordpress_agent_readiness' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, is descriptive, and uses consistent lowercase with underscores. It is easy to understand and memorable.

Tool Count3/5

A single tool feels thin for a server named 'Site Passport', which suggests a broader scope. However, the tool is comprehensive in its function, checking multiple aspects of readiness, so the count is borderline but not inappropriate.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers all major elements of AI-readiness (llms.txt, robots.txt, schema.org, WebMCP), making it a complete solution for its stated purpose. Minor gaps could include additional checks like security headers, but the core domain is well covered.

Available Tools

1 tool
check_wordpress_agent_readinessAInspect

Checks whether a WordPress site (or any website) is ready to be safely operated by AI agents: llms.txt, AI-crawler directives in robots.txt, schema.org markup, and a WebMCP capability manifest. Live-checked against the site itself, never self-reported.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe site URL to check, e.g. https://example.com

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the check is performed live against the site itself, not self-reported. This is important for trust. It also implies a read-only operation (a check) without stating potential side effects, but that is reasonable. It does not mention any failure modes or specific HTTP behaviors, but for a simple check tool this is adequate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Checks whether a WordPress site (or any website) is ready') and then enumerates the specific checks. There is zero waste, and every clause adds value. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no siblings, the description covers the essential context: what is checked, the live nature, and the scope (WordPress or any website). The main gap is that it does not describe the return value format (e.g., pass/fail, detailed report). Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what the agent can expect back, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor omission.

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% – the `url` parameter has a clear description in the schema ('The site URL to check, e.g. https://example.com'). The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not introduce extra semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking a site's readiness for AI agents. It lists the specific aspects checked (llms.txt, robots.txt directives, schema.org markup, WebMCP manifest), which goes beyond a generic statement and gives the agent a concrete understanding of what is evaluated. The live-check note adds clarity on the verification method.

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?

There are no sibling tools, so explicit differentiation isn't needed. The description implies usage: use this when you need to verify a site's readiness before operating it with AI agents. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention any prerequisites (e.g., valid URL, reachable site). The context is clear enough but not fully explicit.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedcheck_wordpress_agent_readiness

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to check whether a public website is crawlable, understandable, and ready for AI search workflows through local-only audits of robots.txt, sitemaps, metadata, and llms.txt.
    3
    250
    1
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to interact with WordPress sites over MCP, providing read-only tools for AEO/GEO readiness, AI visibility, traffic, request logs, bot identification, page checks, and schema/markdown previews, plus opt-in write tools to draft, edit, and publish posts with permission checks and auditing.
    1
    GPL 2.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Checks whether a website is readable and citable by AI search engines — llms.txt, Schema.org structured data, AI-bot access in robots.txt, content freshness, answer directness, E-E-A-T signals, plus a LocalBusiness Rich Results validator. Free, no API key, remote Streamable HTTP.
    1
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.