TESSA Marketing & Technology

Quick AI readiness check of a website

assess_ai_readiness

Read-onlyIdempotent

Quick automated check of how ready a website is for AI assistants and agents: 12 of the 46 items in TESSA's AI Readiness audit, checked on the homepage and a few standard files in about 15 seconds. Not the full audit.

    Items (by audit number): 4 robots.txt allows AI crawlers, 5 the firewall
    serves the homepage to real AI crawler user agents (OAI-SearchBot,
    PerplexityBot, Claude-User) the same as to a browser, 6 content readable
    without JavaScript, 7 XML sitemap, 8 llms.txt, 9 /pricing.md,
    10 Organization or LocalBusiness schema, 16 one H1, 18 phone, address and
    hours as plain text, 32 schema potentialAction, 41 A2A agent card,
    43 MCP server card.

    Returns each item's status (pass, partial, fail or could_not_check) with
    evidence and a plain-English fix, a 0 to 100 overall_score over the items
    that could be checked (could_not_check never counts as a fail), what the
    full audit adds, and TESSA's contact details. The full audit covers all 46
    items across the site plus a live ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity and Gemini
    citation test; book it with request_strategy_session.

    url: the website to check, for example https://example.com

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: ~15 second runtime, homepage-plus-standard-files scope, and the scoring rule that could_not_check never counts as a fail. Rate limits or auth needs are not mentioned, but this is an unauthenticated public check.

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?

Purpose and the quick-vs-full distinction are front-loaded, and the item enumeration, while long, is load-bearing detail rather than filler. The return-value paragraph is slightly dense but every clause (statuses, score, fixes, cross-sell) informs the call.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains the return shape itself: per-item status (pass/partial/fail/could_not_check) with evidence and a plain-English fix, plus a 0-100 score. It also names what the full audit adds, leaving no gap an agent would need to guess at.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single url parameter, so the description must carry it. It supplies both meaning ('the website to check') and a concrete format example ('https://example.com'), which the schema omits entirely.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with exact scope: '12 of the 46 items in TESSA's AI Readiness audit, checked on the homepage and a few standard files in about 15 seconds.' An agent can distinguish this AI-readiness check from the sibling assess_seo / assess_ad_tracking / assess_website tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as the quick partial check versus the full 46-item audit and names the routing alternative: 'book it with request_strategy_session.' The when-to-use-what is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast against the other assess_* siblings or state when not to run any check.

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

All TESSA Marketing & Technology 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?