Auditoria MCP

auditar_web

Audita estado, redirecciones, cabeceras y cookies de una URL pública.

Args:
    url: URL http o https; si no lleva esquema se asume https.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "auditar_web"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 what parts of a URL are inspected, but does not state whether the audit is read-only, what permissions are needed, rate limits, timeouts, or side effects.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence followed by a focused Args section. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers its purpose and parameter behavior, but with no annotations and no output schema it omits behavioral context and return structure. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent might need before invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'url' accepts http or https and that https is assumed when no scheme is supplied. This is complete semantic guidance for the single required parameter.

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 ('Audita') and lists the exact resources inspected: status, redirects, headers, and cookies, scoped to a public URL. The URL focus distinguishes it from domain/email audit siblings without needing their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'de una URL pública' implies when the tool is applicable, but there are no explicit when-to-use instructions, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like auditar_dominio or captura. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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

All Auditoria MCP 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?