Skip to main content
Glama

Raven

by ai.ravenmcp

audit_page

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit HTML/CSS against Raven's design quality standards. Checks typography (min 13px, weight 400+, modular-scale heading ratios, line-height consistency), accessibility (WCAG touch targets, alt text, contrast), responsive patterns (flexbox over grid, clamp sizing, max-width containers), style guide compliance (CSS custom properties, no bare hex), and visual rhythm (4/8px spacing grid, tight spacing scale, palette size). Pass containerMaxWidth (your design system's canonical container token, in px) to make the max-width check token-aware — it then flags containers that diverge from your system (too narrow OR too wide) instead of a generic 1200px heuristic. Returns pass/fail per check with specific fix instructions. NOTE: the url argument is REJECTED on this hosted (remote) endpoint - pass html instead. audit_page url-capture is disabled on the hosted (remote) endpoint. Pass the page HTML via the 'html' argument instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoREJECTED on this hosted (remote) endpoint; pass html instead. (Local/stdio: Raven launches headless chromium, renders the page, and audits the RENDERED DOM.)
htmlNoThe full HTML content of the page to audit
strictNoStrict mode — also flags warnings as failures. Default: false
compactNoReturn only the decision-grade signal — score, grade, summary, errors, warnings, fix_priority — and drop the embedded base64 screenshot and the passes list (replaced by passes_count). Default false. Use when the full payload would blow the tool-result budget.
viewportNo
interactionsNoBefore capturing, fire each interaction in order (hover/click/focus the selector, then wait delay_ms). Captures the resulting dynamic state — e.g. an on-hover theme-toggle wash invisible to a static screenshot.
scroll_settleNoBefore capturing, step through the page with short pauses so IntersectionObserver/whileInView reveals fire, then return to the top and settle. Also plays preload=none videos. Prevents blank-section false positives.
containerMaxWidthNoYour design system's canonical content-container width in px (e.g. 1152). When set, the responsive/max-width check flags divergence from this token instead of using the generic 1200px heuristic.
adversarial_verifyNoAfter generating findings, independently re-check each against the live DOM/network and tag it confirmed / likely-artifact / inconclusive. Surfaces a debunked_count.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, and the description complements them by explaining the remote endpoint restriction (url rejected, html required), the return contract (pass/fail per check with fix instructions), and the token-aware behavior of containerMaxWidth. It does not contradict annotations.

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 description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and check list. However, the remote endpoint note is repeated three times ('url argument is REJECTED', 'url-capture is disabled', 'pass html instead'), which adds redundant padding and reduces conciseness.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear scope, check list, return behavior, and endpoint-specific invocation caveat, making it sufficient for selection. It does not need to detail output formatting since compact/schema covers that, but it could have mentioned the screenshot behavior; overall it is complete enough.

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 description coverage is 89%, and the schema already fully describes parameters like url, html, strict, compact, viewport, interactions, scroll_settle, containerMaxWidth, adversarial_verify. The description adds little beyond restating containerMaxWidth's token-aware behavior and the remote url rejection, which are already in schema; thus it stays near the baseline 3.

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 description opens with 'Audit HTML/CSS against Raven's design quality standards' and enumerates specific check categories (typography, accessibility, responsive patterns, style guide compliance, visual rhythm), which clearly defines the tool's resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_typography or audit_contrast by being a comprehensive page-level audit covering multiple standards.

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?

The description includes operational guidance for the containerMaxWidth parameter and explicitly states the remote endpoint requires html instead of url. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria or name alternatives (e.g., use audit_typography for typography-only checks), so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Raven toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (audit_* vs get_* vs list_* vs generate_* vs score_*), but there is notable overlap among audit_page, audit_layout, score_page, and audit_url (all audit rendered HTML, with audit_page and score_page explicitly sharing checks; audit_screen and audit_ios_screen are aliases). The get_* family (get_pattern vs get_content_pattern vs get_service_pattern, get_principles vs get_brand_principles vs get_content_principles) have overlapping boundaries that may cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (audit_*, get_*, list_*, generate_*, score_*, compose_*, suggest_*, search_*), which is predictable and readable. Minor deviations exist: 'evaluate_design' uses evaluate_ instead of audit_/score_, and 'process' isn't present but 'compose_system' uses compose_ instead of generate_/get_. Overall the convention is strong and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

45 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped server (3-15 tools) and even beyond the 'heavy' 25+ threshold. The server appears to be an all-in-one design/UX knowledge base and auditing suite, but the sheer count makes discovery and selection overwhelming, and many tools (e.g., multiple audit_* variants for mobile platforms) could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide domain: audits for web/mobile/RN/SwiftUI, design tokens, UX principles, content systems, business strategy, creative scoring, and service design. However, there are gaps: no tool for creating or editing design systems (only get/generate), no update/delete operations anywhere (all read-only or audit-only), and the creative side has list/score but no generation tool. The set feels broad but shallow in lifecycle coverage.

Resources