Extract every link from a page and report which resolve and which are broken. Live network check.
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": "link_check"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Page to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page to check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "url"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most important trait — 'Live network check' — signalling real outbound requests, latency, and possible rate limiting. However, it omits timeouts, redirect handling, whether redirects count as broken, and any limit on how many links are tested.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the key operational caveat (live network check) placed last as a qualifier. Nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and roughly what it returns (resolved vs broken). It stops short of describing the return shape or how ambiguous cases like redirects, timeouts, and non-HTTP links are classified, which matters for interpreting results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Page to check'), so the schema already covers it. The description reinforces that the target is a page containing links, which adds slight meaning, but no URL format or scope constraints beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Extract every link from a page and report which resolve and which are broken.' That is clearly distinct from siblings like crawl, scrape, or analyze_url because the output is framed as a resolution/broken status report. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, keeping it at 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over crawl, scrape, analyze_url, or status_check, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'Live network check' hints that it performs real requests rather than cached analysis, but the agent must infer the decision rule entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.