LLPRO Campus

Check one page for search (title, description, headings, canonical, noindex, robots.txt, sitemap, structured data, alt text, weight)

page_search_ready

Read-onlyIdempotent

Is one public web page set up so search engines can find, read and list it? Send the page address; we fetch that page, then its robots.txt and one sitemap from the same site (3 fetches at most, each may follow up to 3 redirects, no crawling) and give pass / fix / unknown for ten things, each with the evidence we saw and what to change: title, description, headings, canonical, noindex signals, robots.txt, sitemap, structured data, image alt text, page weight (the HTML document only). The answer is dated and signed with our key so you can keep it as proof of what the page showed. Free, no sign-up, 100 checks a day per caller. Statements are about what the page showed, not about ranking or how any search engine will treat it. One page per call (no lists), nothing stored (short-lived rate counters only). This tool feeds Search for agents (road: agent-search): agents that look for a page-readiness check find it through MCP registries; it is reached through the Campus gateway (MCP, A2A and REST).

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "page_search_ready"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	One public http(s) page address, e.g. https://example.com/about. Ports 80/443 only; no user name or password; no list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses fetch mechanics (3 fetches max, up to 3 redirects each, no crawling), data handling (nothing stored, short-lived rate counters only), rate limits (100 checks a day per caller, free, no sign-up), and that responses are dated and signed. It also pre-empts misinterpretation by stating results describe what the page showed, not rankings.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core question is front-loaded and the fetch/limit details are informative, but the middle is a single long run-on sentence that mixes return values, limits and disclaimers. The trailing sentence about the agent-search road and the Campus gateway is promotional platform context that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return contract: pass/fix/unknown for ten named checks, each with observed evidence and a recommended fix, plus a signed timestamp. Combined with fetch, storage and rate-limit disclosures, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error/failure behavior is left unstated.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single url parameter including format, port and length constraints. The description restates 'one public web page' and 'no list' but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema carries, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: checking whether one public web page is discoverable by search engines, then enumerates the ten dimensions checked. It explicitly bounds scope ('one page per call (no lists)', 'no crawling'), which separates it from sibling tools like page_to_text or sitemap_read.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states the trigger clearly ('Send the page address') and gives eligibility rules for the input (public page, one per call, no lists). It also names the audience ('agents that look for a page-readiness check'). What it lacks is an explicit contrast with named siblings, e.g. when to use sitemap_read or page_to_text instead.

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?