Website Auditor MCP

Shareable report + badge

get_report

Read-only

Generate a shareable report URL and embeddable badge snippet for a website audit to share, export, or send to clients.

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 ($49/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

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

Output 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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes further by disclosing the paid-subscription gate, the $49/month price, trial terms, and a fallback tool. It stops short of describing failure behavior (e.g., invalid or unauthorized domain), which would be the remaining useful detail.

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 and usage triggers are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the prerequisite and fallback trailing logically. The pricing/trial parenthetical is the longest stretch and is arguably more commerce detail than an agent needs to select the tool, though it does support setting user expectations.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly defers to it while still noting the two artifacts returned. Annotations plus schema plus this text cover selection, prerequisites, and fallback; only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the domain field and its example format; the description adds no parameter detail but needs none. This is the baseline case for a one-parameter tool with complete schema documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: returning a shareable report URL plus an embeddable badge snippet for a website. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by naming the concrete artifacts (link, HTML badge) that only this tool produces.

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?

It enumerates the user intents that select this tool ("share," "export," "send a client," "embed") and gives an explicit alternative path: if the user has no subscription, call get_sample_audit first. That is both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use rule.

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