Website Auditor MCP

Shareable report + badge

get_report

Read-only

Create a shareable report URL and an embeddable HTML badge for a website audit, so users can export, share with clients, or embed the results.

Instructions

Get a shareable report URL and the embeddable "Audited by Website Auditor" badge snippet for a website. Use this when someone wants to "share," "export," "send a client," or "embed" the audit result. Returns a link and an HTML badge snippet. Requires a Website Auditor subscription ($10/month; eligible new customers get a 7-day free trial — payment method required, no charge until the trial ends) — if the user doesn't have one, call get_sample_audit first to show them the exact output format, free and with no API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The website domain, e.g. "example.com".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`badge_html`	Yes
`report_url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.23Sep 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "badge_html": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "report_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "report_url",
+    "badge_html"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.6Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the operationally critical gate: a required paid subscription, pricing, trial terms, and the fact that a payment method is needed. That is real value beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about failure modes or rate limits.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then usage triggers, then return payload, then the subscription prerequisite. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical pricing/trial detail is verbose and slightly buries the prerequisite at the tail.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values need no further explanation, and the description still names them (link plus HTML badge snippet). For a single-parameter read tool, the subscription requirement and the get_sample_audit fallback cover everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The website domain, e.g. "example.com".'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or syntax guidance beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (get) and two concrete resources (shareable report URL and embeddable badge snippet) for a website, which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_ai_visibility or get_benchmark. It also names the sibling get_sample_audit as the fallback path.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly enumerates the triggering user intents ("share," "export," "send a client," "embed") and gives a concrete when-not path: if the user lacks a subscription, call get_sample_audit first. Both the when and the alternative are spelled out.

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

Deploy Server