Website Audit MCP

compare_websites

Audit 2–10 URLs and return a ranked comparison by overall score, helping identify which website performs better across key audit categories.

Instructions

Audit 2 to 10 URLs and return them ranked by overall score, best first.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "compare_websites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes	http or https URLs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the output ordering (best score first) but says nothing about what 'overall score' measures, whether audits are synchronous or slow, rate limits, auth needs, or how failures on individual URLs are reported.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the cardinality constraint, ending with the ranking behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: how many inputs, what they are, and what comes back and in what order. It is nearly complete, with only the semantics of the score and error handling for individual URLs left undefined.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description's '2 to 10 URLs' simply restates the schema's minItems/maxItems and the 'http or https' constraint is already in the schema, so no meaning is added beyond what structured fields provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('Audit ... URLs') and states the return shape ('ranked by overall score, best first'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling audit_website by requiring 2-10 URLs, but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 '2 to 10 URLs' bound implies batch comparison rather than the single-site audit offered by audit_website, so usage is suggested. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer the single-URL sibling, and no mention of prerequisites such as valid/public URLs or cost of a large batch.

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

Deploy Server