agentsvc-mcp

tech_stack

Detect the technologies a website uses — CMS, frameworks, analytics, CDN, web server, ecommerce and tag managers — from its HTML, headers, cookies and scripts, returning categories, versions and confidence scores.

Instructions

Website Technology Detection — Detect the technologies a website uses (CMS, frameworks, analytics, CDN, web server, ecommerce, tag managers ...) from its HTML, headers, cookies, meta tags and script URLs, matched against 7,600+ open webappanalyzer fingerprints. Returns name, categories, version where visible, confidence and evidence, plus a by-category summary. Params: url (required), min_confidence (0 to 100, default 50). Cost: $0.009 USDC per call. Latency p99: 6000ms.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "tech_stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`min_confidence`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and does well: it names the input sources (HTML, headers, cookies, meta tags, script URLs), the matching corpus (7,600+ webappanalyzer fingerprints), the return fields (name, categories, version, confidence, evidence, by-category summary), plus per-call cost ($0.009 USDC) and p99 latency (6000ms). It omits auth/quota and failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 the purpose and detection surface before output shape, params, and cost/latency, with no filler sentences. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but each clause adds selection-relevant information.

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?

For a 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: return field list, cost, latency, and full parameter semantics. Only auth and error conditions are absent, which is minor at this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it marks url as required and fully specifies min_confidence as 0-100 with default 50 (the confidence threshold concept is explained). Minor gap: url format (scheme, whether redirects are followed) is undefined.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Detect the technologies a website uses') and enumerates exactly what it detects (CMS, frameworks, analytics, CDN, web server, ecommerce, tag managers). It also states the detection sources and fingerprint database, which distinguishes it clearly from siblings such as seo_meta, site_audit, or url_status.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description makes the intended use obvious (tech fingerprinting of a live site) but never says when to prefer it over neighbours like seo_meta, site_audit, or accessibility_check, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server