Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@gridwork/siteaudit

@gridwork/siteaudit

by thegridwork
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

compare_sites

Compare two websites side by side across all audit categories. Use for competitive analysis or before/after comparisons to identify strengths and weaknesses.

Instructions

Compare two websites side by side across all audit categories. Useful for competitive analysis or before/after comparisons.

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": {
      "url1": "<url1>",
      "url2": "<url2>"
    },
    "name": "compare_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
url1YesFirst URL to compare
url2YesSecond URL to compare

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action, such as side effects, auth requirements, or what 'all audit categories' entails.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant 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 two string parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers purpose and usage context, but could mention what the comparison output looks like.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for url1 and url2. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool compares two websites side by side across all audit categories. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like audit_site (single site) and quick_check (quick audit).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description suggests use cases like competitive analysis or before/after comparisons, providing good context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools