Sitecomb
REMOTE · SITECOMB.COM
A quality score out of 100 for any website, plus the areas that need work.
Available components
Last scanned (8 hours ago)
Scores higher than 98% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Marketing and SEO
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security83
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC is configured correctly; the domain's records validate against the full chain to the root. View diagnostics → Pass
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability84
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 501 tokens (~83/item across 6 items; 2 tools + 4 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 2 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a current MCP spec version (2026-07-28).Pass
- Supports UI / widget rendering.Pass
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 3 Nov 26 0
- “check_website” reworded the description of “url” cosmetic
1 cosmetic change on this day. Switch on “Show cosmetic changes” to see it.
- 2 Nov 26 0
- Resource “Sitecomb check result” now points somewhere else: ui://sitecomb/check-result-v2.html → ui://sitecomb/check-result-v4.html security
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “check_website” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “explain_area” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 131 → 83 ▲ functional
- New resource “Sitecomb check result (check-result-v1.html)” functional
- New resource “Sitecomb check result (check-result-v2.html)” functional
- New resource “Sitecomb check result (check-result-v3.html)” functional
- 30 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- Tool “check_website” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 87 to 90. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 26 days of observed history at the previous scan, 27 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 80 to 83. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 24 days of observed history at the previous scan, 25 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 0
- Tool “check_website” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 23 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 73 to 77. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 23 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://sitecomb.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=sitecomb.com | CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 24 Sept 2026 | 23 Dec 2026 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 5a6a009fa6f102e3438e8a34f0c8de4cbf7 |
| SANs: sitecomb.com | ||||||
| CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 4ebd24947e24d394802d84a52fd5b319 |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC secure
Validation of sitecomb.com. — Secure
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| sitecomb.com. | present | 2371 | 13 | Verified |
| sitecomb.com. | Verified address RRset verified with the apex keys |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000 |
| content-security-policy | default-src 'self'; script-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' 'wasm-unsafe-eval' https://challenges.cloudflare.com; frame-src https://challenges.cloudflare.com; style-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' https://fonts.googleapis.com; img-src 'self' data: blob:; font-src 'self' https://fonts.gstatic.com data:; connect-src 'self'; frame-ancestors 'none'; base-uri 'self'; form-action 'self' |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | DENY |
| referrer-policy | strict-origin-when-cross-origin |
| permissions-policy | camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=(), payment=(), usb=() |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://sitecomb.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://sitecomb.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://sitecomb.com/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
check_website Check a website ~211
Checks a public website with Sitecomb. It returns a quality score out of 100 and the areas that have problems, with a count for each. It does not name the problems: those are in the full report. Use it when someone asks whether their website is any good, or what is wrong with it. Also use it when someone asks why their website isn't working for them, or asks to check or audit a website. It looks at six areas: security, privacy and legal signals, page health, works on phones, contact details and found online. A check loads the site the way a visitor's browser does and takes up to about a minute. It only finds problems; it never changes anything on the site. If the site is down or blocks automatic checks, it says it couldn't check and gives no score. Free checks are limited per person and per website each day.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | string | yes | The website address to check, for example https://yoursite.com or yoursite.com. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
explain_area Explain a Sitecomb area ~82
Explains what Sitecomb looks at in one of its six areas, by id: security, privacy, quality (page health), phones, customers or ai. Use it when someone asks what Sitecomb checks, or about an area named in a check_website result. It doesn't check any website.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | string | yes | Which of the six areas to explain. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Sitecomb MCP server?
Sitecomb is a hosted endpoint at https://sitecomb.com/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · sitecomb.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-sitecomb-check-website 'https://sitecomb.com/mcp'
What is the Sitecomb MCP server?
Sitecomb is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.sitecomb/check-website. A quality score out of 100 for any website, plus the areas that need work. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://sitecomb.com/mcp).
Is the Sitecomb MCP server safe to use?
Sitecomb scores 90 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Sitecomb MCP server expose?
Sitecomb exposes 2 tools: check_website, explain_area. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 293 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Sitecomb MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Sitecomb without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Sitecomb MCP server still maintained?
Sitecomb is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.