Designers

Name field check

check_name_fields

Read-only

Reviews the name inputs in form markup and nearby script. Pass markup (HTML, optionally with script). Detects first, last, full, middle and title or gender fields from name, id, placeholder and label, then flags a first and last pair with no single-name option, maxlength under 50, minlength over 1, patterns and regexes that allow only A to Z, required middle name or title, split-on-space logic, and missing autocomplete tokens (WCAG 1.3.5). Guidance follows W3C internationalisation material on personal names, applied as convention. Server rules and database columns are not visible. Reads the pasted source only; nothing is rendered or run, stored or logged.

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": {
      "markup": "<markup>"
    },
    "name": "check_name_fields"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`markup`	Yes	Form HTML, optionally with script.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond them: nothing is rendered, run, stored, or logged, and server-side context is unavailable. This gives the agent a clear safety and scope profile.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and the key input instruction, followed by a dense but useful list of detected issues. It is appropriately sized for a checker tool, though the long second sentence packs many checks together.

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?

Given the one-parameter schema and rich annotations, the description covers scope, checks, privacy behavior, and limitations well. It does not explain the exact return structure or severity of flagged issues, which is a modest gap because no output schema exists.

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 100%, so the single `markup` parameter is already documented. The description repeats that it is HTML optionally with script but adds no further syntax, size, or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: reviews name inputs in form markup and nearby script. It scopes the tool to first, last, full, middle, title/gender name fields and WCAG 1.3.5 autocomplete checks, which clearly separates it from general form-audit siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It tells the agent to pass `markup` and clarifies that only pasted source is read, while server rules and database columns are invisible. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus `check_form`, `audit_form`, or other form-related siblings.

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

All Designers tools Inspect

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

Need Help?