Scan any public website for agentic-commerce readiness. Get Visibility, Understandability, and Transactability scores (0-100) with pass/fail signal details.
Run Apirro's free agentic-commerce readiness scan on any public website. Returns Visibility, Understandability and Transactability scores (0-100) plus pass/fail signal details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website URL or domain to scan, e.g. https://allbirds.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost ('free') and the shape of the result (three 0-100 scores plus pass/fail signal details), which is valuable with no output schema. It says nothing about rate limits, latency, permissions, error behavior, or whether scanning is idempotent/repeatable.
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 sentences, zero filler, and the action plus scope is front-loaded ahead of the return-value detail. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the subject, and the return values, which is nearly enough. It leaves minor gaps around failure/error handling and relationship to explain_readiness_signal, but nothing that would block a correct call.
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 100% and the single url parameter is fully documented in the schema with a format example, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the 'public website' qualifier, which mildly augments the schema but does not add syntax or normalization details.
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?
States a specific verb (run a readiness scan) and a specific resource (any public website), and names the concrete outputs (Visibility, Understandability, Transactability scores). It implicitly separates itself from the informational siblings (glossary, pricing, overview) by being an action tool, though it never explicitly contrasts with explain_readiness_signal, which covers related 'signal' territory.
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?
Usage is implied — call it to assess a site's agentic-commerce readiness — and 'any public website' is a useful scope constraint implying private/authenticated URLs are out of scope. However, no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.