Website Auditor MCP

Start/stop monitoring

track_site

Destructive

Monitor a website's AI visibility on a weekly schedule to see changes over time; disable enrollment to stop.

Instructions

Start (or stop) ongoing monitoring of a website's AI visibility on a schedule. Use this when someone wants to "monitor," "track," "watch," or "get alerted about" a site's AI visibility over time, rather than a one-off check. Adds weekly re-audits to the history that get_changes reads from — a history every audit already accrues, tracked or not — so use this to be watched on a schedule, not to make get_changes work. Passing enabled: false stops monitoring by deleting the enrollment, as untrack_site does. 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".
`cadence`	No	Monitoring cadence (weekly).	weekly
`enabled`	No	Set false to stop monitoring.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`cadence`	No
`created`	No	Present when starting: whether this call created a new tracking.
`message`	Yes
`removed`	No	Present when stopping.
`tracking`	Yes	True after a start/confirm; false after a stop.
`already_tracked`	No

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": {
+    "already_tracked": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "cadence": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "created": {
+      "description": "Present when starting: whether this call created a new tracking.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "removed": {
+      "description": "Present when stopping.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "tracking": {
+      "description": "True after a start/confirm; false after a stop.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "domain",
+    "tracking",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.6Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description explains concretely what is destroyed: passing enabled:false deletes the enrollment, equivalent to untrack_site. It also discloses prerequisites beyond the annotations — a $10/month Website Auditor subscription, 7-day trial, payment method required — which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before calling.

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-loaded with purpose, then routing, then cost, and every clause carries information. It is slightly overlong and the parenthetical 'a history every audit already accrues, tracked or not' plus stacked em-dashes make one sentence harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining agent needs: scheduling semantics, the stop path, the sibling alternative, and the subscription prerequisite.

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 100%, so the schema already documents domain/cadence/enabled and the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics on top by explaining the consequence of enabled:false (enrollment deletion) rather than merely repeating 'Set false to stop monitoring.'

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 and resource with scope: 'Start (or stop) ongoing monitoring of a website's AI visibility on a schedule.' It differentiates from the one-off audit path and from untrack_site, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger vocabulary ('monitor,' 'track,' 'watch,' 'get alerted about'), an explicit when-NOT ('not a one-off check,' 'not to make get_changes work'), and names the fallback path (untrack_site for stopping; get_sample_audit when there's no subscription).

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

Deploy Server