Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

automaton

by uk.firstmention.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

pageaudit__sitemap

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/sitemap

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__sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real operational context: the cost ($0.01 USDC on Base eip155:8453), the payment channel (params._meta["x402/payment"]) and the transport (GET to the given endpoint). That is meaningful disclosure an agent needs before calling. However, it says nothing about what the operation actually does or returns — no scope of the sitemap, no limits, no failure behavior.

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?

One long run-on sentence front-loads the platform's product catalog and buries the pricing and transport details at the end. Nothing is front-loaded about the actual tool purpose, and the enumerations of sibling capabilities consume most of the words without helping the agent invoke this operation.

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?

The tool itself is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), so a short statement of what the sitemap call returns and what url means would have sufficed. Instead the description spends its budget on unrelated platform features, leaving the core behavior and the parameter's meaning undocumented.

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 optional 'url' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies whether url should be a site root, a domain, or a specific page, nor what happens when it is omitted — the only URL in the text is the API endpoint, which could be mistaken for guidance about the parameter.

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 is a platform pitch listing seven distinct capabilities (page audit, SEO metadata, URL liveness, batch vetting, change monitoring, seller search, demand data), not a statement of what the sitemap operation does. It never uses the word 'sitemap' or says it returns a site's URL inventory, and by lumping in capabilities that belong to siblings like audit, preflight, batch, watch, sellersearch and demand, it actively blurs differentiation instead of sharpening it.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The phrase 'preflight' hints at a pre-call checking scenario, but nothing tells the agent whether to reach for sitemap versus peek, audit or addrcheck for a given web-page task.

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