@gridwork/siteaudit

audit_site

Audit any website for accessibility, performance, SEO, design, and mobile responsiveness. Get scores, grades, and prioritized fixes in report or JSON format.

Instructions

Run a comprehensive site audit covering accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA / EAA), performance, SEO, design quality, and mobile responsiveness. Returns scores, grades, and prioritized fixes.

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": "audit_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The URL to audit (e.g., https://example.com)
`format`	No	Output format: 'report' for readable markdown, 'json' for structured data	report

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool returns scores, grades, and prioritized fixes, indicating a read-only audit. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the site or require authentication, leaving some uncertainty.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and coverage, the second states the output. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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 tool with simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs and outputs adequately. It mentions specific standards (WCAG 2.1 AA/EAA) and output types. Could be more complete by noting any limitations or prerequisites, but overall sufficient.

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 covers both parameters (url and format) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it scores at the baseline of 3.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Run a comprehensive site audit'), specifies the coverage areas (accessibility, performance, SEO, design quality, mobile responsiveness), and distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_accessibility or quick_check by indicating it is a full audit.

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 implies usage for a full overview but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the specialized siblings (e.g., audit_accessibility) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server