Measured rates at which web services lack machine-readable capabilities. Research demonstrator.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have largely distinct purposes: absence_rate provides aggregate metrics, host_report gives per-host findings, and bulk_export exports full records. However, absence_rate and host_report both relate to absence measurement and could be confused without careful reading of descriptions.
All tool names use consistent snake_case and are descriptive. They do not follow a strict verb_noun pattern (absence_rate is noun_noun, bulk_export is adjective_verb), but the style is uniform and readable.
Three tools is within the acceptable range but feels thin for an index that likely needs discovery and metadata operations. Each tool does earn its place, but the set may be overly minimal.
The surface covers aggregate rates, full exports, and per-host reports, but lacks basic discovery operations such as listing populations, gap classes, or available time ranges. This could cause dead ends for agents trying to explore the index.
Measured absence rate per gap class for a population, with the denominator and sample provenance. Aggregate only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gap_class | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that output is aggregate-only and includes denominator and sample provenance, but says nothing about permissions, computation windows, rate limits, or how the rate is derived. The read-only nature is only inferable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One dense sentence with no filler, and the output content (denominator, provenance) and scope constraint ('Aggregate only') are front-loaded. It is telegraphic to the point of being terse, but every clause carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter, the description leaves too much to inference for an agent to call the tool confidently. It hints at return values but omits the population definition, parameter semantics, and any usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter gap_class, and the description only echoes it via 'per gap class' without defining valid values, format, or what happens when it is omitted (the parameter is not required). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource (absence rate) and its unit of measure (per gap class for a population), and explicitly notes the output includes denominator and sample provenance. The action verb is only implied ('Measured'), and there is no differentiation from the siblings, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as bulk_export or host_report. The phrase 'Aggregate only' is a scope limit rather than routing guidance, so an agent has no stated condition for preferring this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Full signed record for a population. Requires a credential AND payment (TEST network; settles nothing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that a credential and payment are required, that this is a TEST network, and that it settles nothing, but it omits key behaviors such as whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the signed record contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loading the output description before the requirements. It is appropriately sized and contains no filler, though the first sentence could be slightly more action-oriented.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it specifies the return type ('full signed record') and prerequisites. However, it leaves 'population' undefined and does not explain what a 'signed record' entails or what the credential/payment mechanism involves, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific output ('Full signed record for a population') but lacks a clear action verb and does not distinguish this tool from its siblings (absence_rate, host_report). An agent can infer it retrieves some kind of record, but the scope and nature of the record are vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only lists prerequisites (credential and payment) and a network caveat; it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the sibling tools. There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Per-host findings. Requires a bearer credential.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait, the bearer-credential requirement, but says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, or result shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded ahead of the auth note. The telegram style leaves no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return-value context. It omits what 'findings' contain, the response format, and the meaning of the host argument, leaving a single-parameter tool under-documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must clarify the lone 'host' parameter, but it says nothing about its expected format (hostname, IP, ID). Only one required parameter and no enums, so the burden is modest, but the gap is real.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The phrase 'Per-host findings' names the resource scope (a single host) and implies a report of findings, but supplies no verb and no indication of what kind of findings or data the tool returns. It is distinguishable from bulk_export by the 'per-host' scoping, but only loosely from absence_rate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling absence_rate or bulk_export, and no stated exclusions or preconditions beyond the credential requirement. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
absence_ratebulk_exporthost_reportPublic AI web-readiness scanner and machine-facing observability discovery service.
Read-only public website inspection: evidence-backed Machine Presence observations with uncertainty.
Measured x402 ecosystem data, facilitator reliability, and live endpoint checks.
19 free website QA and AI-visibility tools. Remote HTTP MCP, no account, no API key.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
