Is a website up right now? Start here for any is-the-site-down question: up/down verdict, HTTP status, response time and redirect count in one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full URL, e.g. https://deinkunde.com |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| up | No | ||
| url | No | ||
| server | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| redirects | No | ||
| statusText | No | ||
| responseTimeMs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "ok": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "redirects": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "responseTimeMs": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "server": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "statusText": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "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?
The annotation readOnlyHint:true already covers safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing exactly what the call returns (up/down verdict, HTTP status, response time, redirect count) and indicating it checks 'right now' (real-time). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful expectations beyond the schema.
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 two short sentences that front-load the core question and immediately follow with usage guidance and output summary. Every phrase earns its place: 'right now' signals real-time, 'start here' gives behavioral priority, and the enumerated outputs set expectations with zero fluff.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, fully documented in schema) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It captures the purpose, usage trigger, and key return fields, and the sibling context makes it clear this is the default entry point for website status checks.
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 for the single 'url' parameter is 100%, with a clear example ('https://deinkunde.com'). The description does not add extra parameter-level information beyond confirming the resource is a website, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools but doesn't exceed it.
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 phrase ('Is a website up right now?') and resource ('website'), and lists concrete outputs (up/down verdict, HTTP status, response time, redirect count). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning itself as the starting point ('Start here') for is-the-site-down questions.
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 usage context: 'Start here for any is-the-site-down question'—this tells when to use the tool. It implies that for more focused checks (e.g., response time alone) other sibling tools might be used, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the highest score.
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.