Skip to main content
Glama

webbersites-x402-data-api

by io.github.webberdesign

get_platform

Read-onlyIdempotent

What is this website built with? Deterministic fingerprinting from one fetch — like the old meta generator tag, but it works even when sites strip it. Detects WordPress, Shopify, Squarespace, Wix, Webflow, GoDaddy, Drupal, Joomla, Ghost, Magento, Next.js/Nuxt/Gatsby/Astro and other frameworks, static HTML, custom PHP — with the evidence for the verdict, the raw generator tag when present, and the server/CDN stack. No AI. ($0.002 per call, paid via x402)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic http(s) URL to fingerprint, e.g. https://example.com

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
stackNoserver, powered_by, cdn from response headers
categoryNocms, ecommerce, site-builder, framework, static-generator, static, custom
evidenceNothe fingerprints behind the verdict
platformNowordpress, shopify, squarespace, wix, webflow, nextjs, custom-php, static-or-custom-html, …
generatorNoraw meta generator tag when present
checked_atNo
confidenceNohigh, medium, or low
also_detectedNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context (deterministic, no AI, works even when meta tags stripped, pricing) without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: main question, mechanism, detection scope, and pricing. No wasted words.

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?

Given the single parameter, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete, covering purpose, behavior, and practical details.

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 a single 'url' parameter described. The description adds example and context ('public http(s) URL') but does not significantly extend schema meaning.

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 ('detect') and resource ('website platform'), lists numerous detectable platforms, and clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_wp_assess or get_scrape.

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?

It explicitly states the use case: detecting platform from a single fetch. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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

All webbersites-x402-data-api 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).

Resources