Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Web Intel MCP

Web Intel MCP

by ArceeDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

tech_stack

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect a website's frameworks, CMS, analytics, payment providers, CDN/hosting, and security headers from a URL to assess its technology stack.

Instructions

Detect frameworks, CMS, analytics, payments, CDN/hosting and security headers of a site.

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": "tech_stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations establish a read-only, idempotent, open-world operation, while the mention of a site and its security headers adds limited context about what is examined. The description does not clarify whether detection uses live requests, cached data, or fingerprint databases, nor does it mention coverage or accuracy limitations.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with "Detect" and contains no filler. Its enumeration is dense but useful because each category defines part of the detection scope.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the category list is sufficient for basic selection and invocation. It remains incomplete on URL expectations, detection method or limitations, and the boundary with related metadata and SEO tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for the bare url string parameter. "Of a site" only implies that the URL identifies the target and gives no guidance on scheme requirements, accepted hostname or path forms, or an example.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The verb "Detect" and the concrete list of frameworks, CMS, analytics, payments, CDN/hosting, and security headers make the function immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from page_metadata or seo_audit, so sibling selection still requires some inference.

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 description implies using the tool when an agent needs a site's technology and security-header profile. It provides no explicit when-not guidance or routing to page_metadata for general metadata or seo_audit for SEO analysis.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools