Skip to main content
Glama

squirrelscan

by com.squirrelscan

Add a website

add_website

Register a website with the organization without running an audit (run_audit registers automatically, so this is only needed to set a site up ahead of time). Returns the website_id; idempotent per domain, so calling it again returns the existing website. Pass kind to classify it as owned or prospect up front. On a plan with scheduled audits, a NEW site is registered with recurring weekly audits already on, and each of those runs costs credits: tell the user before calling this, and point them at the site's schedule settings to turn it off. The result's scheduled_audits field reports what was actually set.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesWebsite URL to register, e.g. https://example.com (scheme optional).
kindNoClassify the site: 'owned' for something the user runs and monitors, 'prospect' for a lead or competitor. Filterable in list_websites. Unclassified sites read as 'owned', so only an explicit 'prospect' makes a site show up in a prospect cleanup. Re-calling with a different value reclassifies it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Classify the site: 'owned' for something the user runs and monitors, 'prospect' for a lead or competitor. Filterable in list_websites. Unclassified sites read as 'owned', so only an explicit 'prospect' makes a site show up in a prospect cleanup. Re-calling with a different value reclassifies it.",
+  "enum": [
+    "owned",
+    "prospect"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: idempotency per domain, automatic enabling of recurring weekly audits on eligible plans, credit costs, and the presence of scheduled_audits in the result. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries necessary information: core action, idempotency, classification, cost warning, and result field. The most important statement (register without audit, contrast with run_audit) is front-loaded, and the warning is placed logically before usage.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all operational aspects: when to use, side effects, return value (website_id and scheduled_audits), idempotent behavior, and cost implications. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains the effect of 'kind' (owned vs prospect), clarifies that unclassified sites default to 'owned', and notes that re-calling with a different value reclassifies. This goes well beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('a website with the organization'), and explicitly contrasts itself with run_audit, making its unique role clear. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from the closely related sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states exactly when to use this tool ('only needed to set a site up ahead of time'), notes that run_audit registers automatically, and provides a warning to inform the user about costs and how to turn off scheduled audits. This is explicit guidance with alternatives and exclusions.

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

All squirrelscan toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair: websites, audits, issues, rules, credits, notifications, and account info are cleanly separated. Even the close pairs (delete_website vs delete_websites, get_rule vs list_rules) are clear singular/bulk or fetch-all vs fetch-one distinctions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: add_, delete_, get_, list_, run_, comment_, send_, create_. The only outlier, whoami, is a conventional standalone command and does not break the overall predictability.

Tool Count4/5

At 20 tools, the surface is slightly heavy, but the count is justified by the wide domain coverage: audit lifecycle, issue tracking, rule catalog, billing/credits, notifications, and account management. Each tool appears to earn its place, and none feel redundant.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is well covered: run an audit, poll it, fetch a report, compare audits, list and comment on issues, browse rules, and manage websites. Minor gaps exist—no cancel-audit tool, no update_website, and issues cannot be status-changed—but agents can work around these using the existing tools.

Resources