Web Validator by DigestSEO

Audit public webpage

audit_public_webpage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user provides one live public webpage URL. Fetches one bounded static HTML response, then runs HTML validation, SEO/accessibility-signal, and JSON-LD syntax checks. It checks links only when requested and does not crawl, execute JavaScript, authenticate, or fetch linked stylesheets. Use only URLs the user owns or is authorized to inspect.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	One authorized public HTTP(S) webpage URL; private pages, credentials, and custom ports are rejected.
`max_links`	No	Maximum links to check, from 1 to 20.
`check_links`	No	Whether to contact eligible public links found on the fetched page.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`links`	Yes
`overview`	Yes
`html_info`	Yes
`redirects`	Yes
`css_errors`	Yes
`seo_issues`	Yes
`css_checked`	Yes
`fetched_url`	No
`html_errors`	Yes
`http_status`	No
`broken_links`	Yes
`content_type`	No
`css_messages`	Yes
`page_fetched`	Yes
`seo_findings`	Yes
`failed_checks`	Yes
`healthy_links`	Yes
`html_messages`	Yes
`html_warnings`	Yes
`links_checked`	Yes
`requested_url`	No
`schema_issues`	Yes
`seo_truncated`	Yes
`html_truncated`	Yes
`links_requested`	Yes
`schema_findings`	Yes
`schema_truncated`	Yes
`unreachable_links`	Yes
`redirects_followed`	No
`html_total_messages`	Yes
`schema_blocks_checked`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it fetches only one bounded static HTML response, checks links only when requested, and explicitly states it does not crawl, execute JS, authenticate, or fetch linked stylesheets, plus an authorization requirement. This fully discloses side effects and limitations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition. Every sentence conveys distinct, necessary information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format is covered. The description explains what checks are performed, linked-checking behavior, limitations, and authorization requirements, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds slight context by mentioning 'one live public webpage URL' and 'checks links only when requested,' but does not meaningfully supplement the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 audits a single public webpage by fetching HTML and running validation/SEO/JSON-LD checks. It explicitly contrasts with site-level and link-checking tools by noting it checks links only when requested and does not crawl.

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?

The description opens with 'Use this when the user provides one live public webpage URL,' giving explicit when-to-use guidance. It lists exclusions (no crawl, no JavaScript) that imply when-not-to-use, but does not name specific alternative tools; the alternatives are only available as sibling names.

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

All Web Validator by DigestSEO 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.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: site audit, single page audit, SEO metadata check, broken links check, combined report generation, and separate validators for CSS, HTML, and JSON-LD. Descriptions explicitly clarify boundaries (e.g., 'does not fetch a live webpage' vs 'use for a live URL').

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools use four different verb prefixes ('audit_', 'check_', 'generate_', 'validate_') without a unifying pattern, making the naming scheme somewhat inconsistent. While each prefix is reasonable, the lack of a consistent verb_noun structure reduces predictability.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a web validation server, covering the major validation tasks (HTML, CSS, JSON-LD, broken links, SEO signals, site audit) without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core validation needs for public websites, but lacks some advanced SEO checks (e.g., mobile-friendliness, performance) and does not validate Schema.org vocabulary semantics. Minor gaps exist but do not severely hinder the server's primary purpose.

Resources

Need Help?