mcplocker.com WebMCP audit

Name: mcplocker.com WebMCP audit
Creator: ora

Rescan

audited Aug 31, 2026in 16s

92/ 100100% of the applicable check weight evaluated

2 tools registered. Strongest in task completion, weakest in shared experience.

Shared experience75

Task completion100

Tool quality96

Trust100

https://mcplocker.com

Tools

1 read, 0 write, 1 undeclared

Loading map

sign_in

Sign in or create a free MCP Locker. Sends a one-time link to the email. Opening the link in this browser starts the session. New emails get a locker. Existing emails open the locker they already have. Using this tool agrees to the privacy policy at https://mcplocker.com/privacy.No behaviour hints declared. Agents should treat it as possibly state-changing.

pagehttps://mcplocker.com/

implementation

viaimperative

entry pointdocument

registered after183ms

executepresent

api surface

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: 2 names do not start with a verb (sign_in).

fix

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

tool json

{
  "name": "sign_in",
  "description": "Sign in or create a free MCP Locker. Sends a one-time link to the email. Opening the link in this browser starts the session. New emails get a locker. Existing emails open the locker they already have. Using this tool agrees to the privacy policy at https://mcplocker.com/privacy.",
  "inputSchema": {
    "type": "object",
    "properties": {
      "email": {
        "type": "string",
        "description": "Inbox that will receive the sign-in link."
      }
    },
    "required": [
      "email"
    ]
  },
  "annotations": {}
}

Findings

Shared experience

75 / 100 · weight 30

warningPage experience

weight 20

2 of 4 page-experience marks came back short: clarity The input fields and buttons are very light, making them hard to distinguish..

clarity: weak; readability: weak

warningHuman parity

weight 10

The page the person sees came back short of the agent surface (2 of 4 page-experience marks came back short: clarity The input fields and buttons are very light, making them hard t...), so the two are not sharing an equal experience.

fix

// Make the tool's effect visible on the page the person is looking at:
// update the same UI your existing human flow uses when your_tool_name runs,
// so the person co-browsing sees what the agent just did.
execute: async (args, { signal }) => {
  const result = await performAction(args, signal);
  renderResultInPage(result); // the human-visible half of the same action
  return result;
}

Task completion

100 / 100 · weight 25

passTool selection

weight 15

An agent chose an existing, callable tool and built a schema-valid call for all 2 canonical intents, each matching the kind of tool its intent needs. Nothing was executed, so this verifies selection, not outcomes.

not applicableCoverage vs. site type

weight 10

This tool set does not place the site in a category with a known expected tool shape, so there is no coverage baseline to score it against.

Tool quality

96 / 100 · weight 25

passRegistration timing

weight 1

Every measured tool registered within 183ms of navigation.

toolsession

passCanonical entry point

weight 3

All 2 tools register on the canonical document.modelContext entry point.

passSchema validity

weight 4

All 2 declared input schemas are structurally valid object schemas.

passSchema quality

weight 4

All 1 of 2 tool schemas that declare parameters describe them (the other 1 declares no parameters), and every description stays within Chrome's size guidance.

warningNaming quality

weight 2

Tool naming makes selection harder than it needs to be: 2 names do not start with a verb (sign_in).

toolsign_in

fix

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

passStub detection

weight 4

All 2 tools declare an execute handler.

passRegistration errors

weight 2

No tool registration threw during the capture.

passDescription quality

weight 5

All 2 rated tool descriptions say what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns.

Trust

100 / 100 · weight 20

not applicableAnnotations present

weight 6

No tool name reads like a read, and an absent readOnlyHint already defaults to "this may write" - the one hint worth declaring here is readOnlyHint: true on read tools, and this set has none to declare it on.

passAnnotation mismatch

weight 6

No tool claims to be read-only while its own name or description says it writes (1 declared hint checked).

not applicableUntrusted content hint

weight 4

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

not applicableInjection surface

weight 4

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

100% across 2 intents

I want to sign in on this site.ok

chosesign_inexpected sign inkind matched

arguments

{
  "email": "example@example.com"
}

I want to session on this site.ok

chosesessionexpected sessionkind matched

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: native modelContext
chrome: 148.0.7778.96
capture shim: v1
spec snapshot: 2026-08-26
mode: fast
pages: 1 - entry page only
tools: 2
run time: 16s
finished: Aug 31, 2026

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