Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

automaton

by uk.firstmention.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

pageaudit__canary

Web page intelligence for agents: page audit, SEO metadata, URL liveness preflight, batch x402 endpoint vetting, change monitoring, x402 seller search, and real 30-day paid-usage demand data for the x402 market. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: GET https://api.firstmention.uk/s/pageaudit/canary

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pageaudit__canary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / url
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / urls
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / seller
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / urls
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / seller
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / url
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / url
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / urls
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose the price ($0.01 USDC on Base, eip155:8453) and the payment mechanism (params._meta["x402/payment"]) plus the HTTP endpoint, but it says nothing about what 'canary' returns, what side effects or rate limits exist, or what a paid call produces.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The content is compressed into one long run-on enumeration of unrelated features followed by pricing details. It is not front-loaded with this tool's specific purpose, so the reader must scan past six other capabilities before reaching anything actionable.

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

Completeness2/5

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 an undocumented parameter, the description needed to explain both what the tool does and its behavior. It instead presents a service-level pitch, so an agent lacks the information required to call this tool correctly or know when to prefer a sibling.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single parameter 'url' has 0% schema description coverage and is optional (0 required), so the description must compensate — it does not. The only URL reference is to the HTTP endpoint, not to the 'url' argument, leaving its format, purpose, or why it is optional unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description never states what the 'canary' tool itself does; instead it enumerates the whole service family's capabilities (page audit, SEO metadata, preflight, batch vetting, change monitoring, seller search, demand data). An agent cannot distinguish this tool from siblings like pageaudit__preflight, pageaudit__batch, pageaudit__watch, or pageaudit__sellersearch, all of which are plausibly the real owners of those verbs.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance and no explicit alternative named. The capability list actually implies usage that overlaps with named siblings, which will steer an agent toward the wrong tool rather than away from it.

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

All automaton toolsInspect
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