broken_link_report
Broken-link report from supplied crawl evidence. Costs $0.15 Base USDC.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
DeltaBot Utility Suite
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses a $0.15 cost, but it does not state whether the operation has side effects, what 'crawl evidence' should look like, how results are returned, or any rate/access requirements.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise: two short sentences with no filler. The key cost detail is included, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. Additional explanation would be welcome but the existing text wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a paid tool with an unstructured input object, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is far too incomplete. An agent cannot know how to format the crawl evidence, what fields to provide, what the report will look like, or what errors to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter is an opaque free-form input object with no declared properties and 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'crawl evidence' but gives no structural detail, expected fields, examples, or meaning of the nested input object.
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 identifies the tool as producing a broken-link report from supplied crawl evidence, which names a specific verb and resource. It does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling web-analysis tools like website_health or seo_meta_audit, but the broken-link focus is reasonably specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling report tools. The phrase 'from supplied crawl evidence' hints at a precondition but does not explain when this tool is appropriate or when another report would be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools are distinguishable by their input source (HTTPS probe, JSON snapshots, OpenAPI, ABI, CSV, etc.), but several report-style tools overlap in purpose, such as changelog_generator vs. release_dependency_risk and csv_profile vs. data_quality_profile. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily hesitate between similarly named change/health/report tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
All names are lowercase snake_case and generally follow a <domain>_<artifact> pattern, which is predictable and readable. The suffixes vary considerably -- report, summary, digest, audit, health, profile, generator, validator, risk, radar -- so it is not a strict verb_noun convention, but the style is consistent enough.
Tool Count3/5
25 tools is at the upper edge of the borderline-heavy range. The suite spans web, data, repository, security, and wallet domains, so each tool has a plausible place, but the sheer number makes navigation heavier than a typical cohesive toolset.
Completeness3/5
The suite provides broad coverage for reporting, validation, and change detection, but there are notable gaps such as generic raw data fetching, a generic diff utility, and obvious transforms beyond CSV-to-JSON. For a broadly scoped utility suite, coverage is partial but not severely incomplete.