Layero

Замерить скорость сайта

check_performance

Read-only

Measure a site's speed and say whether it got worse after a deploy.

The verdict comes FROM THE SCORE, not from timings: repeated runs of the
same deploy vary by at most one point, while LCP and TTFB on identical
code swing by 37-40%. A difference of 3 points or more is meaningful;
anything smaller is measurement noise, and calling that a regression is
inventing a problem.

A run takes tens of seconds. With `wait=true` the tool waits for you; do
not start a second measurement in parallel — it will occupy the queue
and add nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wait`	No	Дождаться результата замера (десятки секунд) или вернуться сразу. `false` — когда пользователю нужен не результат, а сам факт запуска.
`project`	Yes	Проект: слаг (`my-site`) или id. Слаг — то, что видно в адресе сайта; если пользователь назвал сайт словами, возьми слаг из `my_projects`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`delta`	Yes
`score`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`timings`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes
`next_action`	Yes
`previous_score`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses valuable behavior: the verdict comes from the score, not timings; repeated runs vary by at most one point; a run takes tens of seconds; and parallel measurements occupy the queue. This adds significant context without contradicting the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information: the verdict source, the noise threshold, the run duration, and the queue warning. No redundant or filler text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description, combined with the rich schema and output schema, gives the agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains interpretation, parameter behavior, and cautions, leaving no critical gaps for a decision-making agent.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description goes further by explaining the wait parameter's behavior ('With wait=true the tool waits for you' and warning against parallel use), adding meaning beyond the schema's basic description. Not quite a 5 because project parameter semantics are not enriched.

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 primary function: 'Measure a site's speed and say whether it got worse after a deploy.' This specifies a distinct verb, resource, and context, setting it apart from sibling tools like site_status or site_analytics.

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?

The description provides clear contextual guidance, such as using the score rather than raw timings and treating differences under 3 points as noise. It also advises against parallel measurements. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Layero tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are distinct, but there's real confusion risk between the deploy-related set (cancel_deploy, retry_deploy, deploy_logs, diagnose_deploy) and the site-inspection set (site_status, read_site, site_issues, site_screenshot) where purposes overlap. compose_landing vs compose_landing_submit are differentiated mostly by an obscure note rather than naming. Several tools address similar concepts (landing composition, publishing, deploy) making agent misselection plausible.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use a clean verb_noun pattern (list_deploys, connect_domain, check_domain, publish_landing, read_site, rollback). However, conventions are mixed: some use compose/x/check/y (check_copy, check_domain, check_performance) while others use site_x (site_status, site_analytics, site_issues, site_screenshot) with inconsistent ordering. Descriptions mix English and Russian heavily, though that's content not naming.

Tool Count4/5

27 tools is a large but arguably justified surface for a full site-building/deploying/monitoring platform spanning composition, domain management, deploys, performance, analytics, and environment configuration. It sits slightly above what feels tight, but each tool has a defined role in the overall workflow.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full landing lifecycle: compose, publish, deploy, monitor, rollback, diagnose, and connect external resources (domain, analytics, integrations). Minor gaps: no explicit tool for site deletion/teardown, only read_site for editing with refactor_site being narrow, and no way to update an existing landing's text beyond refactor. Still, core CRUD and operational flows are covered.

Resources

Need Help?