web-presence-audit

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

check_form_platform

Detect a site's form platform (WPForms, Contact Form 7, Wix, Typeform, etc.) to predict whether automated form outreach works, plus an outreach note and visible field count.

Instructions

Detect which form/website platform a site runs (WPForms, Contact Form 7, Wix, Squarespace, Jotform, Gravity Forms, HubSpot, Typeform, Drupal, or 'unknown'). The platform PREDICTS whether automated form outreach can work: WordPress/WPForms and CF7 accept standard fill-and-submit; Wix forms fire no network traffic on automated submits (verified in live campaigns) — use email or social there instead. Returns the platform, a plain-English outreach note, and the count of visible form fields (hidden honeypot fields excluded).

Args: url: The page to check, e.g. "https://example.co.uk" or "https://example.co.uk/contact".

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": "check_form_platform"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return contents (platform, plain-English outreach note, visible field count), the honeypot-exclusion behavior, and the empirical caveat that Wix forms produce no traffic on automated submits. It omits anything about auth, rate limits, or behavior when a site is unreachable beyond listing 'unknown'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Wix/outreach material is genuinely decision-relevant rather than filler. The platform enumeration and the multi-clause Wix explanation make it slightly longer than needed, and the trailing quoted Args block is a formatting artifact.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description redundantly but harmlessly restates them. For a single-input detection tool with no annotations, the remaining gap is error/edge behavior (unreachable or non-form sites) beyond the 'unknown' fallback.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines url as the page to check and gives two concrete formats (bare domain and domain with /contact path). It doesn't specify scheme requirements, redirect handling, or whether non-HTML resources are accepted.

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 description names a specific verb+resource ('Detect which form/website platform a site runs') and enumerates the detectable platforms, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It does not, however, explicitly position itself against siblings like audit_website or run_full_audit, so sibling differentiation remains implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear decision context: the detected platform predicts whether automated form outreach will work, with a concrete rule ('Wix forms fire no network traffic — use email or social there instead'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool or stating when a call is unnecessary, so it falls just short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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

Deploy Server