Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Designers

by com.allthepossibles
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Site consistency

site_consistency
Read-only

Pro. Find templates that drift. Crawls the site from url (same origin only, up to 40 pages, 4 requests at a time, or only the paths you list), uses sitemap.xml to find pages, and obeys robots.txt for the user agent ATPDesigners. Reads static HTML only. The result opens with coverage: pages read of pages found, which were skipped or truncated, and requests used. Treats the most common version of each area as the baseline and lists the pages that differ: primary nav links, header and footer markup, footer links, stylesheet set, h1 class, button and link text written several ways, html lang and icons.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "site_consistency"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesHome page or any page on the site. The crawl stays on this origin.
pathsNoOptional list of same-origin paths such as /about. When given, only these pages are read and links are not followed.
sitemapNoUse sitemap.xml to find pages. Default true.
maxPagesNoOptional lower page cap. The hard cap is 40 pages.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: 40-page cap, 4 concurrent requests, same-origin restriction, sitemap.xml discovery, robots.txt compliance for UA ATPDesigners, static HTML only, non-destructive read. It also discloses the baseline heuristic (most common version of each area) and the coverage preamble, so the agent knows what it will and won't see.

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?

Dense but every clause carries operational meaning; no filler sentences. However the leading 'Pro.' is an unexplained marker that occupies the highest-value position, and the single run-on paragraph could be front-loaded better with the purpose before the crawl mechanics.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work by describing the coverage header and the drift list. What is not fully specified is the per-page result format (what value is shown for a differing page, how baseline vs variant are presented), a minor gap for a tool whose output is the whole point.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the interaction between `url`, `paths` (which suppresses link-following) and the hard 40-page cap, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 is correct.

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?

A specific verb plus resource: 'Find templates that drift', followed by an enumeration of exactly what is compared (nav links, header/footer markup, footer links, stylesheet set, h1 class, label text, html lang, icons). That enumeration meaningfully separates it from generic drift tools, but no sibling is named, so an agent must still infer its boundary versus site_page_diff or check_design_drift.

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?

Usage is only implied: the crawl constraints (same origin, 40-page cap, paths list overrides link-following) tell an agent how to call it, not when to prefer it. There is no explicit when-not-to-use condition and no routing to the sibling drift/page-comparison tools that overlap with it.

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