Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Designers

by com.allthepossibles
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Site meta audit

site_meta_audit
Read-only

Pro. Audit head metadata across a site. 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. Checks title and description presence, length and duplicates, canonical links that point elsewhere, html lang, viewport, og and twitter tags, robots meta noindex, hreflang validity and icon links.

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_meta_audit"
  }
}

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses concrete behavior: 4 concurrent requests, hard 40-page cap, robots.txt compliance under a named UA, static HTML only, and that the output opens with a coverage report (pages read/found, skipped, truncated, requests used). This is exactly the context annotations don't carry.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with purpose and parameters before the checks list. The leading 'Pro.' is extraneous marketing noise and the final sentence is a long run-on, but every substantive clause earns its place.

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 compensates by describing what the result contains (a coverage header plus the specific metadata checks). Combined with rich annotations and full param coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces a few behaviors (origin-bound url, paths-only reading without link following, implicit 40-page cap) but adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Audit head metadata across a site') and enumerates the exact checks (title, description, canonical, lang, viewport, og/twitter, robots meta, hreflang, icons). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling site tools like site_heading_outline or site_link_health.

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?

Gives clear operational context: same-origin crawl, up to 40 pages, optional paths list, sitemap use, robots.txt obedience, static HTML only. This tells the agent how it behaves but does not explicitly route to alternatives (e.g. when to prefer site_audit_summary or site_inventory).

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