fairquery-web

Official

by fairquery

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Detect website technology stack (free)

web_tech_stack

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect the technologies a single web page uses from its HTML and HTTP headers—frameworks, CMS, CDN/hosting, and analytics—to support lead enrichment and competitor research.

Instructions

Detect technologies used by one page from its HTML and HTTP headers: frameworks (Next.js, Nuxt, React, ...), CMS (WordPress, Shopify, Webflow, ...), hosting/CDN (Vercel, Cloudflare, Netlify, ...), analytics/tag managers, and more, each with category and evidence. WHEN TO USE: lead enrichment ("what stack does this company use?"), competitor research. Signature-based, single request, no JavaScript execution, so client-injected tools may be missed. For many sites use web_batch_audit. Fetching: read-only GETs from this server with User-Agent "FairqueryBot ... Fairquery-MCP", 15 s timeout per request, body capped (1.5 MB HTML), max 5 redirects; URLs resolving to private/loopback/link-local addresses are refused (SSRF guard). Free, no token, no JavaScript rendering. RETURNS: a paged list {count, total, offset, hasMore, nextOffset, meta{input, final_url, status_code, generator, server, x_powered_by, note}, items[{type:"technology", name, category, evidence}]}. Filter with category. Errors (isError=true, JSON {error, message, retryable}): INVALID_URL, BLOCKED_PRIVATE_ADDRESS, DNS_FAILED, FETCH_FAILED, TIMEOUT, TOO_MANY_REDIRECTS. WHEN NOT TO USE: for SEO metadata use web_seo_audit; for security headers use web_security_headers. COST: free - runs locally in this MCP server (direct HTTP GETs), no APIFY_TOKEN, no Apify billing. EXAMPLE: {"url":"vercel.com","category":"hosting"} -> {count:1, items:[{type:"technology", name:"Vercel", category:"hosting", evidence:"..."}], ...}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Required. One public domain or http(s) URL, e.g. "vercel.com" or "https://www.python.org/about/". Bare domains are fetched over https; private/loopback hosts are refused.
`limit`	No	Optional page size: number of items to return, integer 1-200 (default 50)
`offset`	No	Zero-based offset into the full result list (default 0); use nextOffset from the previous page
`category`	No	Only return technologies whose category contains this text (case-insensitive), e.g. "analytics", "cms", "cdn"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`meta`	No	Tool-specific context (company, source_url, ...)
`count`	Yes	Number of items in this page
`items`	Yes	Result rows for this page
`total`	Yes	Total items matching the filters (before paging)
`offset`	Yes	Offset of the first item in this page
`hasMore`	Yes	True if more items exist after this page
`nextOffset`	Yes	Offset to pass for the next page, or null

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.1Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description still adds substantial behavioral context: signature-based detection with no JS execution (so client-injected tools may be missed), identifying User-Agent, 15 s timeout, 1.5 MB body cap, max 5 redirects, SSRF refusal of private/loopback addresses, and free/no-token cost. This is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Long but front-loaded and sectioned (WHEN TO USE / Fetching / RETURNS / WHEN NOT TO USE / COST / EXAMPLE), so an agent can skim to the needed part. Every block carries operational information with no filler.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still summarizes the return shape and error taxonomy (INVALID_URL, BLOCKED_PRIVATE_ADDRESS, DNS_FAILED, FETCH_FAILED, TIMEOUT, TOO_MANY_REDIRECTS) with the isError/retryable contract. For a single-request fetch tool with SSRF guard and pagination, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value: it explains the category filter's role, documents the pagination contract via nextOffset, and provides a worked EXAMPLE showing url+category producing a filtered item. It does not, however, add syntax beyond what the schema states for url/limit/offset.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Detect technologies used by one page from its HTML and HTTP headers") and enumerates the detectable categories (frameworks, CMS, hosting/CDN, analytics), making the scope concrete. It also names the sibling tools it is NOT (web_seo_audit, web_security_headers, web_batch_audit), so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE with concrete scenarios (lead enrichment, competitor research) plus routing to web_batch_audit for many sites, and a WHEN NOT TO USE section routing to web_seo_audit and web_security_headers. Both inclusion and exclusion conditions are stated.

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

Deploy Server