watchfor.io WebMCP audit

Name: watchfor.io WebMCP audit
Creator: ora

Rescan

audited Sep 4, 2026in 13s

97/ 100100% of the applicable check weight evaluated

10 tools registered. Strongest in shared experience, weakest in trust.

Shared experience100

Tool selection100

Tool quality95

Trust92

https://watchfor.io

Tools

6 read, 1 write, 3 undeclared

Loading map

get_site_overview

Returns a short description of WatchFor — the monitor types, locations, alerting, incident and status-page features, plans — together with the paths of its machine-readable guides (llms.txt, agents.md, OpenAPI specification, MCP manifest). Takes no parameters.Answers a question. Declared read only.

pagehttps://watchfor.io/

implementation

viaimperative

entry pointdocument

registered after726ms

executepresent

api surfaceTakes no parameters.

annotations

read onlytrue

untrusted contentnot declared

titlenot declared

0 findingsNo check named this tool.

tool json

{
  "name": "get_site_overview",
  "description": "Returns a short description of WatchFor — the monitor types, locations, alerting, incident and status-page features, plans — together with the paths of its machine-readable guides (llms.txt, agents.md, OpenAPI specification, MCP manifest). Takes no parameters.",
  "inputSchema": {
    "type": "object",
    "properties": {}
  },
  "annotations": {
    "readOnlyHint": true
  }
}

Findings

Shared experience

100 / 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

The page a person sees holds up next to the agent surface: a working interface, visible actions, readable content, nothing in the way.

passHuman parity

weight 8

The person co-browsing can see and use this page - the same page the agent's tools act on, and 1 declarative form doubles as visible counterparts.

Tool selection

100 / 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.

passTool selection

weight 12

An agent chose an existing, callable tool and built a schema-valid call for all 3 canonical intents, each matching the kind of tool its intent needs. Nothing was executed, so this verifies selection, not outcomes.

passCoverage vs. site type

weight 7

The tool set covers the whole core docs flow: search or browse the catalog, read a page or article, navigate the documentation tree.

Tool quality

95 / 100 · weight 25

passRegistration timing

weight 1

Every measured tool registered within 727ms of navigation. 1 further tool carried no measurable registration time.

toolcheck_website

passCanonical entry point

weight 3

All 9 tools register on the canonical document.modelContext entry point.

passSchema validity

weight 4

All 9 declared input schemas are structurally valid object schemas.

warningSchema quality

weight 4

2 of 10 tool schemas are harder for an agent to use than they need to be: list_docs declares no required list, so an agent cannot tell which parameters are mandatory.

toollist_docs

list_docs: declares no required list, so an agent cannot tell which parameters are mandatory; read_page: declares no required list, so an agent cannot tell which parameters are mandatory

fix

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

passNaming quality

weight 2

All 10 tool names are consistent, verb-led, and within Chrome's size guidance.

passStub detection

weight 4

All 9 tools declare an execute handler.

passRegistration errors

weight 2

No tool registration threw during the capture.

passDescription quality

weight 5

1 of 10 tool descriptions leave an agent guessing: submit_website_audit Omits what comes back, and how it differs from check_website.

toolsubmit_website_audit

submit_website_audit: weak

Trust

92 / 100 · weight 20

warningAnnotations present

weight 5

1 of 7 read-shaped tools do not declare readOnlyHint: true, so an agent has to treat them as possible writes and ask before calling. (Declaring readOnlyHint: false earns nothing - it is the default.)

toolcheck_website

check_website

fix

{
  name: "check_website",
  // Declare readOnlyHint: true on tools that truly have no side effects -
  // that is the claim that lets an agent relax confirmation on reads.
  // (false is the default, so declaring it adds no information.)
  annotations: { readOnlyHint: true }
}

passAnnotation mismatch

weight 5

No tool claims to be read-only while its own name or description says it writes (6 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

100% across 3 intents

Find the page that explains authentication.ok

chosesearch_docsexpected docs searchkind matched

arguments

{
  "query": "authentication"
}

Read that page to me.ok

choseread_pageexpected page readkind matched

arguments

{
  "path": "/docs/api/authentication"
}

What other pages are in the same section?ok

choselist_docsexpected navigationkind matched

arguments

{
  "section": "api"
}

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 148.0.7778.96)
chrome: 148.0.7778.96
capture shim: v2
spec snapshot: 2026-08-26
mode: fast
pages: 1 - entry page only
tools: 10
invoked: not invoked; a live audit calls them
run time: 13s
finished: Sep 4, 2026

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