Skip to main content
Glama

ConformRadar

by com.conformradar
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

check_html

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run ConformRadar's checks on the HTML of ONE page you are building or editing (theme template, rendered page, local preview), before it goes live. Use it to verify a fix without waiting for a new scan.

Checks by page_type:
  product: environmental claims, GPSR manufacturer and safety block, strikethrough price, customer reviews, textile composition and origin.
  home: environmental claims, outdated EU ODR link, customer reviews, withdrawal function.
  terms / returns: legal guarantee box, consumer mediator, outdated EU ODR link, withdrawal, EPR unique identifier.
  legal_notice: seller identity, EPR unique identifier (checked against the ADEME register), mediator, ODR link.

Args:
    html: full HTML of the page (up to 3 MB). JSON-LD product data in the page is read.
    page_type: which kind of page this is.
    url: the page's future address, if known (used in the evidence and to recognise the shop's own domain).
    lang: "fr" or "en".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
htmlYes
langNofr
page_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: a hard 3 MB HTML size limit, that JSON-LD product data is parsed, that url is used to recognise the shop's own domain, and the exact check set per page type.

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-loads the purpose in one sentence, then a scannable per-page_type check list and a short Args block. The page_type list is somewhat long but each line carries semantic content (which checks run) that the bare enum values do not provide.

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 should hint at what comes back; it references 'the evidence' but never states the result format (findings, pass/fail, severity). Everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool is present, but the response shape remains a modest gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does so well: html (full page, size cap, JSON-LD read), page_type (drives which checks run, with the enum values mapping to documented check groups), url (future address, used in evidence and domain recognition), and lang (fr/en). Only the return shape of the checks stays undescribed.

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 (run checks) on a specific resource (the HTML of ONE page) and enumerates exactly which checks fire per page_type. It clearly distinguishes itself from scan_website (full scan) and check_text (text-based) by scoping to one page's HTML before go-live.

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 context: use it on a page you are building or editing (template, rendered page, local preview) and to verify a fix without waiting for a new scan, which implicitly contrasts with a full site scan. It does not explicitly name check_text or scan_website as the alternatives, so usage routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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

All ConformRadar toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources