Check how ready a website is for AI agent interactions. Tests for MCP endpoint, WebMCP declarative tools, potentialAction schema, A2A agent card, llms.txt, pricing.md, and more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL (or domain) to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool actively 'tests for' specific signals, implying network requests and analysis. Yet it does not mention whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or what happens with errors, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences, starting with the primary purpose and then listing specific checks. Every word adds value, and it is neither verbose nor under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core functionality and key checks. It does not specify the output format (e.g., score, report), but the tool name and description imply a readiness assessment. Minor gaps exist around how results are returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and accurately describes 'url' as 'The URL (or domain) to check'. The tool description adds no extra parameter nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks website readiness for AI agent interactions, enumerating specific tests (MCP endpoint, WebMCP, potentialAction, A2A card, llms.txt, pricing.md). This distinguishes it from siblings like citerank_check_brand_citations or citerank_analyze_url, which focus on other aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for assessing agentic readiness, and the list of tested features implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct by target resource and action (analyze vs deploy vs check vs simulate). Minor overlap exists between analyze_url and analyze_wp_page, and between get_wp_health and list_wp_pages, but descriptions clarify their specific intents.
All tools follow a consistent 'citerank_' + verb_noun pattern (analyze_url, check_brand_citations, deploy_schema, simulate_agent_journey). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Nine tools fit the domain of AI visibility and schema management well. Each tool maps to a specific workflow step, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The server covers the core lifecycle: analyze, generate, deploy, check health, and simulate. Missing explicit update/delete schema operations, but the health check and deploy log mitigate this, making the surface reasonably complete for its purpose.
