A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceEnables AI agents to read clean Markdown from any URL and assess source quality with AI-readability scores.
6
374
1
MIT
Agent Ready
Server Details
Scan any URL for AI agent readability — Vercel Spec, llmstxt.org, and agent-protocol manifests.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- mlava/agent-ready-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 1
- Server Listing
- Agent Ready
Available Tools
3 toolsaskAsk Agent Ready in natural languageARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Natural-language search (NLWeb /ask) over Agent Ready's own content — scoring methodology, the check registry, the specs it validates, and the content library (explainers, comparisons, how-to guides, glossary). Returns Schema.org-typed result objects. Optional itemType narrows to a corpus type; mode 'summarize' adds an extractive summary.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Natural-language question to search Agent Ready's docs, scoring methodology, check registry, and content library (explainers, comparisons, how-to guides, glossary). | |
| mode | No | "list" (default) returns matching items; "summarize" returns a synthesized answer. | |
| itemType | No | Restrict results to a content type: methodology, checks, specs, llms-txt, check, page (explainers/guides/glossary), or any (default: all types). |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| message | No | Extractive summary when mode is 'summarize'. |
| results | Yes | Matching result items (Schema.org-typed). |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat that. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are Schema.org-typed, mode 'summarize' adds an extractive summary, and itemType narrows the corpus. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add return type and optional parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy.
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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It fully covers what content is searched, the optional narrowing and summarization modes, and the result type. It is complete for a search tool, though it omits any mention of pagination or result limits, which is slightly expected for a search operation.
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 each parameter well-described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight extra meaning by explaining itemType narrows to a corpus type and mode 'summarize' adds a summary, but these largely echo the schema and no new syntax or examples are provided.
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 performs natural-language search over Agent Ready's own content, listing specific corpora (methodology, check registry, specs, content library). It also mentions the return type (Schema.org-typed objects), making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling scan tools.
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 provides clear context on what content is searched and that mode/itemType can adjust the query, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like the sibling tools get_scan and scan_site.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_scanGet a previous scan by idARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetches a completed or in-progress scan by its id. Only scans owned by the authenticated API key's user are returned.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The scan id returned by scan_site (also the share token in a /scan/<id> URL). |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The scan id. |
| status | Yes | Scan status: running, completed, or failed. |
| pollUrl | No | Poll URL while the scan is still running. |
| rootUrl | No | The scanned site URL. |
| shareUrl | No | Path to the shareable report (/scan/<id>). |
| vercelScore | No | Score against the Vercel Agent Readability Spec (0–100); null while running. |
| llmstxtScore | No | llms.txt score (0–100). |
| pagesScanned | No | Number of pages scanned. |
| vercelRating | No | Rating band for the Vercel score. |
| pagesDiscovered | No | Number of pages discovered. |
| protocolResults | No | Agent-protocol checks (C-series) that ran — only for endpoints the site actually exposes. |
| accessibilityScore | No | Accessibility / layout-stability sub-score (0–100) over the homepage WCAG checks; null when none ran. Separate from the Vercel score. |
| accessibilityChecks | No | Accessibility / layout-stability checks (A-series) run over the homepage. |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful context about scan status (completed or in-progress) and the ownership restriction tied to the authenticated API key user, going beyond the structured hints.
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 a single focused sentence plus a helpful title. Every clause adds value: object type, allowed statuses, lookup key, and ownership constraint. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With one required parameter, a fully described schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. No critical guidance is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description supplements the bare 'id' parameter by explaining how the id is obtained (returned by scan_site) and that it doubles as the share token in a /scan/<id> URL. This adds meaningful operational context.
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 fetches a scan by its id and specifies it handles completed or in-progress scans. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like scan_site or ask, but the verb-resource pairing is specific enough to disambiguate.
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 the intended use: retrieve a previous scan by id from the authenticated user's scans. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over scan_site or ask, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_siteScan a site for AI agent readabilityARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Runs the agent-ready.dev scanner against a URL and returns structured results: Vercel score, llmstxt.org score, and per-check findings with remediation hints. Scans may take up to ~60s; for larger scans the tool returns a scan id and asks you to poll with get_scan.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full URL of the site to scan, e.g. https://example.com. Must be a public http(s) address. | |
| pageLimit | No | Maximum number of pages to crawl. Defaults to your tier's per-scan page limit when omitted. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The scan id. |
| status | Yes | Scan status: running, completed, or failed. |
| pollUrl | No | Poll URL while the scan is still running. |
| rootUrl | No | The scanned site URL. |
| shareUrl | No | Path to the shareable report (/scan/<id>). |
| vercelScore | No | Score against the Vercel Agent Readability Spec (0–100); null while running. |
| llmstxtScore | No | llms.txt score (0–100). |
| pagesScanned | No | Number of pages scanned. |
| vercelRating | No | Rating band for the Vercel score. |
| pagesDiscovered | No | Number of pages discovered. |
| protocolResults | No | Agent-protocol checks (C-series) that ran — only for endpoints the site actually exposes. |
| accessibilityScore | No | Accessibility / layout-stability sub-score (0–100) over the homepage WCAG checks; null when none ran. Separate from the Vercel score. |
| accessibilityChecks | No | Accessibility / layout-stability checks (A-series) run over the homepage. |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: latency up to ~60s and deferred results via a scan id and polling. It doesn't mention potential rate limits or costs from repeated scans, but doesn't contradict the annotations.
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?
Two sentences front-load the core action and outputs, then add the latency and polling behavior. No filler or repetition of schema content.
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?
Output schema covers structured results, so the description need not re-explain return values. The description supplies the remaining operational context—timeouts and delegation to get_scan—while the schema covers parameters; an agent has enough to call and follow up correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so url and pageLimit are already documented with formats, constraints, and defaults. The description doesn't add new parameter meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for well-covered schemas.
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?
States a specific verb ('Runs the agent-ready.dev scanner') and resource ('against a URL') plus the exact outputs: Vercel score, llmstxt.org score, and per-check findings with remediation hints. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_scan by describing the async polling flow for larger scans.
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?
Gives clear usage context: scans can take up to ~60s and, for larger scans, the tool instructs the agent to poll with get_scan, which is an explicit alternative. It doesn't discuss the ask sibling or say when scan_site is not appropriate, but the main decision point is covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
- Changed
get_scan1 field changed- changed
Output schema / properties / vercelScore / descriptionPrevious value: -"Vercel agent-readability score (0–100); null while running."New value: +"Score against the Vercel Agent Readability Spec (0–100); null while running."
- Changed
scan_site1 field changed- changed
Output schema / properties / vercelScore / descriptionPrevious value: -"Vercel agent-readability score (0–100); null while running."New value: +"Score against the Vercel Agent Readability Spec (0–100); null while running."
2 tool updates
- Changed
get_scan3 fields changed- added
Output schema / properties / accessibilityChecksAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "checkId": { + "type": "string" + }, + "howToFix": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "message": { + "type": "string" + }, + "name": { + "type": "string" + }, + "status": { + "enum": [ + "pass", + "fail", + "warn", + "error" + ], + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "checkId", + "name", + "status", + "message", + "howToFix" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Accessibility / layout-stability checks (A-series) run over the homepage." +} - added
Output schema / properties / accessibilityScoreAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "number" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Accessibility / layout-stability sub-score (0–100) over the homepage WCAG checks; null when none ran. Separate from the Vercel score." +} - added
Output schema / properties / protocolResultsAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "checkId": { + "type": "string" + }, + "howToFix": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "message": { + "type": "string" + }, + "name": { + "type": "string" + }, + "status": { + "enum": [ + "pass", + "fail", + "warn", + "error" + ], + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "checkId", + "name", + "status", + "message", + "howToFix" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Agent-protocol checks (C-series) that ran — only for endpoints the site actually exposes." +}
- Changed
scan_site3 fields changed- added
Output schema / properties / accessibilityChecksAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "checkId": { + "type": "string" + }, + "howToFix": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "message": { + "type": "string" + }, + "name": { + "type": "string" + }, + "status": { + "enum": [ + "pass", + "fail", + "warn", + "error" + ], + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "checkId", + "name", + "status", + "message", + "howToFix" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Accessibility / layout-stability checks (A-series) run over the homepage." +} - added
Output schema / properties / accessibilityScoreAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "number" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Accessibility / layout-stability sub-score (0–100) over the homepage WCAG checks; null when none ran. Separate from the Vercel score." +} - added
Output schema / properties / protocolResultsAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "checkId": { + "type": "string" + }, + "howToFix": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "message": { + "type": "string" + }, + "name": { + "type": "string" + }, + "status": { + "enum": [ + "pass", + "fail", + "warn", + "error" + ], + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "checkId", + "name", + "status", + "message", + "howToFix" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Agent-protocol checks (C-series) that ran — only for endpoints the site actually exposes." +}
3 tool updates
- First observed
ask - First observed
get_scan - First observed
scan_site
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Scan any website for AI agent readiness, payment protocols, and discovery endpoints
Scan any website's AI readiness: AI search visibility and AI agent usability. Free, no auth.
Clean Markdown and AI-readability scoring for any URL. Built for AI agents.
11Score any website's AI-agent readiness. Open Agent Registry scanner + platform tools.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to scan any website for agent-readiness and generate the necessary artifacts (llms.txt, WebMCP scaffold, structured data) to make it agent-ready.18MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to check whether a public website is crawlable, understandable, and ready for AI search workflows through local-only audits of robots.txt, sitemaps, metadata, and llms.txt.32501MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to create, validate, and audit llms.txt files for websites, including checking against Google Lighthouse's Agentic Browsing requirements, via Streamable HTTP with no API key needed.1612MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: ask searches content, scan_site initiates scans, and get_scan retrieves scan results. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names mostly follow a verb-based pattern (ask, scan_site, get_scan), with slight variation in that 'ask' lacks an explicit object while the others are verb_noun. Overall consistent enough to be predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused scanner/content-search server. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat or redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The scan lifecycle (initiate and fetch) is covered, and content search is provided. Minor gaps like listing past scans or canceling scans exist, but these are workaroundable.