web-presence-audit

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

run_full_audit

Run a full lead-leak audit on a UK local service business. It checks search presence, website hygiene, forms, tap-to-call, NAP consistency, and top competitors, returning prioritized fixes.

Instructions

Run the COMPLETE lead-leak audit on a UK local service business: search presence, website hygiene, form platform, tap-to-call, NAP consistency across free directories, and the 3BestRated top-3 competitors. Returns every finding plus a prioritized leak list. This is the full methodology used in real paid audits. Runs 6-10 free web requests; expect about 10-30 seconds.

Args: business: Business name, e.g. "Driver Plumbing & Heating". city: UK city, e.g. "Leicester". trade: Trade keyword — guessed from the name if omitted. website_url: Known website URL — skips discovery if provided.

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": {
      "business": "<business>",
      "city": "<city>"
    },
    "name": "run_full_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	Yes
`trade`	No
`business`	Yes
`website_url`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 it does disclose meaningful traits: 6-10 free web requests, ~10-30 second runtime, and that it returns every finding plus a prioritized leak list. It does not mention failure/partial-result behavior or rate limits, but the cost, latency, and external-request profile are exactly the context an agent needs before invoking an expensive orchestrator.

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 purpose, scope, and cost are front-loaded in the first paragraph, and the Args block adds semantics rather than restating the schema. It is a touch long and the Args formatting is slightly verbose, but nearly every line earns its place.

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 not be explained, yet the description still summarizes the return ('every finding plus a prioritized leak list'). Scope, cost, and all four parameters are covered; only error/partial-failure handling and explicit sibling routing are absent, which is minor.

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

Parameters5/5

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 documents all four parameters with real semantics: business and city include concrete examples, trade explains it is guessed from the name when omitted, and website_url explains that providing it skips discovery. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare string types and empty-string defaults in the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a concrete verb ('Run') and resource (the complete lead-leak audit) and enumerates the exact dimensions covered: search presence, website hygiene, form platform, tap-to-call, NAP consistency, and top-3 competitors. The word 'COMPLETE' plus 'full methodology used in real paid audits' cleanly separates it from the granular siblings like check_form_platform and audit_website.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent infers this is the comprehensive option versus the piecemeal sibling checks, and website_url is noted as skipping discovery. However there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. 'use check_nap_consistency for a single check') and no note on whether it is safe to run repeatedly. Context is present but routing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server