guild.ai WebMCP audit

Name: guild.ai WebMCP audit
Creator: ora

Rescan

audited Oct 14, 2026in 23s

73/ 100100% of the applicable check weight evaluated

3 tools registered. Strongest in trust, weakest in tool selection.

Shared experience87

Tool selection18

Tool quality91

Trust100

https://guild.ai

Tools

2 read, 0 write, 1 undeclared

Loading map

open_demo_request_form

Opens Guild.ai's demo request form on this page with the details below already filled in, for the person reading the page to check and submit themselves. Sends nothing: no request reaches Guild until they press Submit, and the form asks them a few more questions first. Pricing is discussed on the call.No behaviour hints declared. Agents should treat it as possibly state-changing.

pagehttps://www.guild.ai/

implementation

viaimperative

entry pointdocument

registered after1117ms

executepresent

api surface

firstnamerequired

lastnamerequired

emailrequired

annotations

read onlynot declared

untrusted contentnot declared

titlenot declared

1 finding

warningNaming quality

weight 2

Tool naming makes selection harder than it needs to be: 1 name does not start with a verb (open_demo_request_form).

fix

{ name: "open_demo_request_form" /* short, unique, verb-based */ }

tool json

{
  "name": "open_demo_request_form",
  "description": "Opens Guild.ai's demo request form on this page with the details below already filled in, for the person reading the page to check and submit themselves. Sends nothing: no request reaches Guild until they press Submit, and the form asks them a few more questions first. Pricing is discussed on the call.",
  "inputSchema": {
    "type": "object",
    "properties": {
      "firstname": {
        "type": "string",
        "description": "The requester's first name."
      },
      "lastname": {
        "type": "string",
        "description": "The requester's last name."
      },
      "email": {
        "type": "string",
        "description": "The requester's work email address. Guild follows up here."
      }
    },
    "required": [
      "firstname",
      "lastname",
      "email"
    ]
  },
  "annotations": {}
}

Findings

Shared experience

87 / 100 · weight 30

not applicableVisible effect

weight 6

Not invoked on this run: this audit did not call any tool. Scheduled re-audits only read the registry; a live audit from the report page calls the tools that declare readOnlyHint: true.

passPage experience

weight 16

1 of 4 page-experience marks came back short: obstruction A cookie banner is present at the bottom right, partially obscuring content..

obstruction: weak

passHuman parity

weight 8

The person co-browsing can see and use this page - the same page the agent's tools act on.

Tool selection

18 / 100 · weight 25

not applicableInvoke success rate

weight 6

Not invoked on this run: this audit did not call any tool. Scheduled re-audits only read the registry; a live audit from the report page calls the tools that declare readOnlyHint: true.

failTool selection

weight 12

An agent chose an existing tool and built a schema-valid call that held up on 0 of 3 canonical intents; on "Find a carry-on suitcase under 300 dollars." no tool on the page served it. Nothing was executed, so this verifies selection, not outcomes.

warningCoverage vs. site type

weight 7

The tool set covers 2 of the 4 things an agent needs on a commerce site; it cannot add to or read the cart or start checkout or place an order.

Tool quality

91 / 100 · weight 25

warningRegistration timing

weight 1

The slowest tool took 1121ms to register, past the 1000ms an agent reading the registry at first paint would wait for.

toolget_company_info

get_company_info: registered at 1121ms

fix

// Register tools as soon as they're ready, not behind a deferred/async chunk.
document.modelContext.registerTool({ /* ... */ });

passCanonical entry point

weight 3

All 3 tools register on the canonical document.modelContext entry point.

passSchema validity

weight 4

All 3 declared input schemas are structurally valid object schemas.

warningSchema quality

weight 4

1 of 3 tool schemas are harder for an agent to use than they need to be: get_company_info 1 parameter description is over Chrome's 150-character guidance.

toolget_company_info

get_company_info: 1 parameter description is over Chrome's 150-character guidance

fix

{
  name: "get_company_info",
  inputSchema: {
    type: "object",
    properties: {
      query: { type: "string", description: "What to search for" }
    },
    required: ["query"]
  }
}

warningNaming quality

weight 2

Tool naming makes selection harder than it needs to be: 1 name does not start with a verb (open_demo_request_form).

toolopen_demo_request_form

fix

{ name: "open_demo_request_form" /* short, unique, verb-based */ }

passStub detection

weight 4

All 3 tools declare an execute handler.

passRegistration errors

weight 2

No tool registration threw during the capture.

passDescription quality

weight 5

All 3 rated tool descriptions say what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns.

Trust

100 / 100 · weight 20

passAnnotations present

weight 5

All 2 read-shaped tools declare readOnlyHint: true - the one declared claim that lets an agent treat a call as safe to make without asking.

passAnnotation mismatch

weight 5

No tool claims to be read-only while its own name or description says it writes (2 declared hints checked).

not applicableUntrusted content hint

weight 3

No tool's contract suggests it returns text written by somebody other than the site, so there is nothing to flag as untrusted.

not applicableHint vs. observed

weight 4

Not invoked on this run: this audit did not call any tool. Scheduled re-audits only read the registry; a live audit from the report page calls the tools that declare readOnlyHint: true.

not applicableInjection surface

weight 3

No tool's metadata carries instruction-shaped text aimed at the agent reading it. This check only ever flags; it never credits a site.

Tool selection

0% across 3 intents

Find a carry-on suitcase under 300 dollars.missed

choseno toolexpected product searchkind not applicable

No tool was picked for this intent.

arguments

{}

Show me the details and price of the first result.missed

choseno toolexpected product detailkind not applicable

No tool was picked for this intent.

arguments

{}

Add two of them to my cart.missed

choseno toolexpected cart writekind not applicable

No tool was picked for this intent.

arguments

{}

model: gemini-2.5-flash

Add the tools this site is missing

Our scanner reads your website and suggests the right WebMCP tools for it.

The open source webmcp plugin teaches your coding agent to audit a site, implement tools on document.modelContext, and verify them in a real browser. npx @ora-ai/webmcp-verify runs the verification on its own. No signup, no hosted service.

how this was captured

observed via: capture shim (Chromium 151.0.7922.34)
chrome: 151.0.7922.34
capture shim: v3
spec snapshot: 2026-08-26
mode: fast
pages: 1 - entry page only
tools: 3
invoked: not invoked; a live audit calls them
run time: 23s
finished: Oct 14, 2026

Checked the way in-browser agents discover tools: the top-level document's modelContext registry, read after the page settles.