ReviewWebsite MCP Server

url_is_alive

Verify if a URL is reachable and responsive by sending a request to the ReviewWeb.site API. Returns status indicating whether the URL is alive.

Instructions

Check if a URL is alive using ReviewWeb.site API.

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": "url_is_alive"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	URL to check if it's alive
`timeout`	No	Request timeout in milliseconds (default: 10000)
`proxyUrl`	No	Proxy URL to use for the request
`api_key`	No	Your ReviewWebsite API key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits like handling of unreachable URLs, timeout implications, or error responses. Since no annotations are provided, the description fails to convey essential operational behavior beyond the basic function.

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 description is extremely concise at one sentence, which is efficient. However, it may be too brief to fully inform an AI agent, but it is not verbose or redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'alive' means (e.g., HTTP status, response time). It is too minimal to fully prepare an agent for appropriate use, especially with multiple parameters.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the tool description adds no new semantic value. It does not clarify usage nuances or relationships between parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks if a URL is alive, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'url_get_after_redirects' or 'scrape_url', leaving some ambiguity about when this tool is preferred.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other URL-checking tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for effective use.

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

Deploy Server