Skip to main content
Glama

Raven

by ai.ravenmcp

audit_responsive_visibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

Render a URL at multiple breakpoints and flag content elements that are visible on desktop but hidden on mobile (display:none / opacity:0 / visibility:hidden / zero-size). Categorises each flag as 'likely-oversight' (content that vanishes on mobile — the hidden-on-mobile content bug) vs 'intentional' (decorative). Returns a table of selector / hiding-class / mobile-visible / desktop-visible / category. Requires headless chromium.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to render (http/https or file://)
breakpointsNoViewport widths in px. Default [390, 768, 1440, 2160]
viewportHeightNoRender height in px. Default 900

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains detection mechanisms, the categorization logic the tool performs, and the environment requirement of headless chromium.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is composed of information-dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action, then adds categorization, output format, and environment requirements in a natural and efficient order.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by specifying the returned table and its columns. Annotations cover side-effect safety, and the tool's environment requirement is disclosed, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, and each parameter already has meaningful descriptions for URL, breakpoints, and viewport height. The description reinforces the audit's purpose but does not meaningfully extend parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema documents.

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 states a specific operation: render a URL at multiple breakpoints and flag elements visible on desktop but hidden on mobile. It also defines the categories ('likely-oversight' vs 'intentional') and output columns, making it clearly distinct from sibling audit tools in the same family.

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 usage context is clear: it applies when auditing responsive visibility for content that disappears on mobile. It names a practical environment prerequisite (headless chromium), though it does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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