LLPRO Campus

Check an A2A agent card and list the problems

agent_card_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Is this A2A agent card well formed? Send the JSON text of an agent card (the file served at /.well-known/agent-card.json). Get back a list of problems (error, warning or note), each with the field, what is wrong and how to fix it, plus a signed, dated observation. Free. Pure check: nothing is fetched, opened, stored or sent anywhere; the web addresses inside the card are only checked for shape. Up to 200,000 characters. Checks the published A2A card fields (0.3.x names).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "card": "<card>"
    },
    "name": "agent_card_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`card`	Yes	The agent card as JSON text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, openWorld=false, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description still adds real context: nothing is fetched, opened, stored or sent, embedded URLs are only shape-checked, and the input cap is 200,000 characters. It also previews the response shape — problems graded error/warning/note with field, fault and fix, plus a signed dated observation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Information is front-loaded: purpose, then input, then output, then safety guarantees and scope. Nearly every clause carries weight, though the one-word 'Free.' sentence and the trailing version note read as marketing/qualifier fragments rather than essential guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so — severity levels, per-problem fields and the signed observation are all spelled out. It also states the covered card version (0.3.x names), so nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: the string is the JSON text of a card file, specifically the one at /.well-known/agent-card.json, and is bounded at 200,000 characters. That exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a direct question that pins the verb (check/validate) and the resource (an A2A agent card), and states the deliverable: a list of problems. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic checks, though it never names a sibling tool it might be confused with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent what to supply and where that input normally comes from (the file served at /.well-known/agent-card.json), which implies the use case. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling check tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All LLPRO Campus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?