Measure a website's response time (DNS, connect, TTFB, total).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full URL, e.g. https://deinkunde.com |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| up | No | ||
| avg | No | ||
| max | No | ||
| min | No | ||
| url | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| partial | No | ||
| samples | No | ||
| samplesRequested | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / partialAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / samplesRequestedAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "avg": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "max": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "min": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "samples": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "up": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context by enumerating the measured network phases (DNS, connect, TTFB, total). It does not describe timeout behavior or response format, but the output schema covers return values, so the added context is sufficient.
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 a single front-loaded sentence: 'Measure a website's response time (DNS, connect, TTFB, total).' Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.
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?
With only one parameter, a clear output schema, and a simple purpose, the description fully captures what the agent needs to select and invoke the tool. It identifies the tool's niche and the measured metrics, making it complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter 'url' ('Full URL, e.g. https://deinkunde.com'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Measure' and a clearly defined resource 'website's response time', listing specific metrics (DNS, connect, TTFB, total). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as ping_test or http_headers, which have different objectives.
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 implies usage when detailed response-time breakdowns are desired, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The context is clear enough to infer the use case, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.
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.
Several tools cluster around overlapping diagnostics, such as asn_lookup vs ip_geolocation and website_status vs response_time/redirect_check/http_headers. Descriptions generally clarify the differences, but the boundaries between some tools are not immediately obvious.
Naming conventions are mixed: check_dns and check_ssl use verb-first, while dkim_check, spf_check, and hsts_check use noun-first. There are also varied styles like dns_propagation, domain_expiry, and whois, making the pattern inconsistent but still readable.
At 20 tools, the server falls into the borderline heavy range. Most tools address a distinct diagnostic need, but some could be consolidated, such as website_status overlapping with response_time and redirect_check.
The toolkit covers the core read-only network/domain diagnostic domain well: DNS, email authentication, SSL/TLS, WHOIS, IP intelligence, and website availability. Minor gaps like traceroute or DNSSEC validation exist, but there are no critical missing operations for the apparent purpose.