Cromanion

cromanion_install_check

Read-only

Why the tag is not firing. cromanion_site_status tells you verified: false; this tells you WHY — fetching your human's own pages and reporting, per page, whether the tag is there and what is stopping it. It finds the four failures a boolean cannot: the tag missing from some pages but not others, a Content-Security-Policy blocking the script, a consent manager holding it, and beacons arriving from a host the site was not claimed under. Each comes back with the fix. Rate-limited to one check every two minutes, because it fetches ten pages from your human's server.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteId`	No	Which site this call is about. Only needed when your credential covers more than one — cromanion_grants lists them and says whether it is required. Omitting it with several is refused rather than guessed at.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`pages`	Yes	Per page: the status we got, whether the tag was in the HTML, and whether a consent manager had parked it.
`checked`	Yes
`present`	Yes	How many of the fetched pages carry the tag.
`verdict`	No	No problems is not the same sentence as it working: a beacon still needs a real visitor.
`problems`	Yes	Empty means the tag is present and nothing blocks it. Each entry carries what is wrong and what to do.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / siteId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which site this call is about. Only needed when your credential covers more than one — cromanion_grants lists them and says whether it is required. Omitting it with several is refused rather than guessed at.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even though readOnlyHint=true already signals a read-only operation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it fetches ten pages from the human's server, is rate-limited to one check every two minutes, reports per page, identifies four specific failure modes, and includes fixes. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and constraint disclosure an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it establishes the relationship to site_status, lists the four diagnostic categories, promises fixes, and discloses the rate limit and page-fetch behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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?

For a diagnostic tool with a single optional parameter, a rich output schema, and annotations declaring read-only and open-world behavior, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, what it checks, what it returns, and the operational constraint of rate-limiting, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding whether or how to invoke it.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single `siteId` parameter, including when it is required and what happens if omitted with multiple credentials. Because schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: diagnosing why the tag is not firing, and explicitly contrasts it with cromanion_site_status, which only reports `verified: false`. It names the resource (the human's pages) and the specific output (per-page tag presence and blockers), making it impossible to confuse with 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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use trigger: when cromanion_site_status reports `verified: false`, this tool explains why. It also names the alternative tool and the four diagnostic categories it covers, giving an agent clear grounds for choosing this tool over cromanion_site_status or other siblings.

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

All Cromanion tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?