Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Designers

by com.allthepossibles
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Form check

check_form
Read-only

Check a form's markup against the style rules in Luke Wroblewski's Web Form Design. Pass a public url (fetched safely, public hosts only) or pasted html. Reports findings with severity (high, medium, low, info) and a fix for label association and placement, placeholder used as a label, required and optional marking, number of fields, input types and autocomplete tokens, inline validation hooks (native constraints, aria-describedby, aria-invalid), vague or risky buttons (Submit, Reset, disabled submit), and ungrouped radio, checkbox and payment fields. Where a check is a common convention and not his stated rule, the finding says so. Reads static markup only: it cannot see CSS, so top versus left label alignment is not confirmed, and script-built fields are invisible. For WCAG-referenced form findings and error message linting, use audit_form.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoPublic page to fetch.
htmlNoForm or page HTML. Use this or url.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the url path is fetched safely and public hosts only, only static markup is analyzed, CSS-dependent checks (top vs left label alignment) are explicitly not confirmed, and findings distinguish Wroblewski's stated rules from common conventions. These are exactly the limitations an agent needs before trusting the output.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then findings, then limitations, then the sibling redirect — a sensible order. The long enumeration of finding categories is dense rather than padded, though it could be tightened slightly without losing information.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: severity levels (high, medium, low, info), the presence of a fix per finding, and the caveat that convention-based findings are labeled. Combined with the stated blind spots, an agent knows exactly what it will and won't get back.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real constraints beyond the schema text: the `url` must be a public host and is fetched safely, and `html` is pasted form or page markup with an either/or relationship. It stops short of stating precedence when both are supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — check a form's markup against Luke Wroblewski's Web Form Design rules — and enumerates the exact finding categories it produces. That level of specificity clearly separates it from audit_form and the other lint-style siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states the two input modes (public url or pasted html), the boundary condition (static markup only, no CSS, no script-built fields), and names the alternative for adjacent needs: "For WCAG-referenced form findings and error message linting, use audit_form." Nothing is left to inference.

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

All Designers toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources