Website feedback tools let reviewers click on a live site and leave a note, and they are good at it. Several have added MCP servers in 2026 (BugHerd, Marker.io, Pastel, Userback, Usersnap among them), so an agent can read the feedback. If you are collecting bug reports or client sign-off on a site that is already live, one of them may be the right tool.
They start from a site that already exists at a URL. Onlay starts from the file your agent just made.
Checked against each tool's documentation in October 2026.
Side by side
| Onlay | Website feedback tools | |
|---|---|---|
| Hosts your agent's file | Yes: a file, a folder or a built app gets a link | No: they overlay a site that is already hosted, through a proxy, a widget or a browser extension |
| Readers edit the text in place | Yes, on documents, when you allow it | Mostly no; Ruttl lets reviewers change content and CSS on its proxy |
| Bug details | The page, the words or element, the reader's screen size and theme on an app | Often richer: screenshots, console and network logs, browser and OS |
| Workflow around feedback | Threads the agent answers and resolves, versions at the same link | Task boards, assignees, integrations with Jira, Linear and others |
| Agent loop | Push, pull, revise, push again to the same link, answer each thread | Read and sometimes reply through their MCP server; the agent fixes the code elsewhere |
Choose a website feedback tool when
- The site is in production and you want bug reports with console logs and browser details.
- You run client sign-off as a project, with a task board and assignees.
- You want to review a URL without adding anything to the site.
Choose Onlay when
- The thing to review is something your agent just made: a document, a deck, a mockup, a prototype, a static site.
- You want readers to fix the wording themselves and have the agent apply it to the source.
- You want the whole round in one loop: the agent publishes, pulls, revises, publishes again to the same link, and answers each thread.