Skip to main content
Glama
Baneado98

web-doctor

by Baneado98
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: check_website_health performs a detailed check on a single domain, while check_many runs a batch check on multiple domains. There is no overlap.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names start with 'check_' but 'check_many' uses a quantifier instead of a noun, deviating from the typical verb_noun pattern seen in check_website_health. Still, the pattern is consistent overall.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server covers single-domain and batch checks, but the scope feels minimal. A few more specialized tools (e.g., SSL-only check) would make the set more robust, but the current count is functional.

    Completeness4/5

    The single check tool is comprehensive, covering TLS, headers, redirects, and latency. The batch tool adds value. Missing are tools for specific subchecks, but the core workflow of auditing and comparing sites is well-covered.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it is a 'live' check returning 'A–F grade', but does not address potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

    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 description is concise with two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the action and purpose effectively.

    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?

    Given no output schema and no annotations, the description partially covers return format ('A–F grade per site') and usage context. However, it lacks details on error handling, speed, or edge cases, leaving gaps for a simple tool.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the sole parameter. The tool description adds no new semantic detail beyond restating 'several domains/URLs'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Run', the resource 'live web health & security check', and the scope 'several domains/URLs at once'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'check_website_health' by implying aggregation.

    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?

    The description provides context by stating it is 'useful to audit a fleet of sites or compare deployments', which implicitly guides when to use it over a single-site check. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses all behaviors: read-only, never logs in or modifies target, performs TLS handshake, checks certificate validity, protocol version, redirects, security headers, and latency. This exceeds typical transparency.

    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 description is moderately long but well-structured, with each sentence adding specific value. It could be slightly more concise, but it is not verbose and clearly communicates the tool's functionality.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the complexity of a security check tool with many sub-checks and only one parameter, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (grade, fixes), and its read-only nature. No output schema is needed as the return is explained adequately.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The input schema already describes the target parameter as a domain or full URL with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating that http(s):// is optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description explicitly states it performs a live web health and security check on a domain or URL, returning an A–F grade with concrete fixes. It lists specific checks (TLS, redirects, headers) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'check_many' by focusing on a single target.

    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?

    The description provides clear usage scenarios: 'before launching a site, when auditing a deployment, or to verify a domain you are about to trust.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or directly reference the sibling, but the context implies it's for single-target checks.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

web-doctor MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

web-doctor MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Baneado98/web-doctor'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server