Check if a link on a live page is followable: rel tokens, meta robots and X-Robots-Tag
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.
The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern (check_link_followability) and aligns perfectly with the server name. There are no conflicting conventions to assess.
The server has exactly one tool, which is on the low end but appropriate for its narrowly scoped purpose of checking link followability. It would be unreasonable to expect more tools for this specific domain.
The tool comprehensively covers the domain by checking all major signals affecting link followability: X-Robots-Tag headers, meta tags, and rel attributes. It returns detailed reasons, leaving no obvious functional gaps.
Fetch a live web page and decide whether a link on it is followable by a crawler. Combines the X-Robots-Tag response header, the robots/user-agent meta tags, and the anchor's own rel tokens (nofollow, ugc, sponsored), with the most restrictive signal winning. Returns a verdict per matching anchor plus the exact reasons it was blocked. Use it to verify a backlink you were promised is actually followable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | Optional. Only report anchors whose href (raw or resolved) contains this string, or whose host equals it. Omit to evaluate every anchor on the page. | |
| page_url | Yes | Absolute http(s) URL of the page that contains the link. | |
| user_agent | No | Optional crawler name to evaluate for, e.g. 'googlebot'. Directives addressed to another named agent are then ignored. Defaults to the wildcard agent. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It transparently discloses that the tool fetches a live page, combines three signals (X-Robots-Tag, meta tags, rel tokens) with a most-restrictive-wins rule, and returns verdicts with blocking reasons. It does not cover edge cases like network errors or non-200 responses, but the core logic is well explained.
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?
The description is three sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a concise explanation of the signal combination and a practical use case. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or verbosity.
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?
Although there is no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the return type (verdict per matching anchor plus reasons) and the core decision logic. It covers the essential behavioral context for a tool of moderate complexity. Minor gaps exist around error handling, but they do not undermine overall completeness.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (page_url, target, user_agent) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool fetches a live web page and decides whether a link is followable by a crawler, specifying the exact inputs (page URL, link) and outputs (verdict per matching anchor plus reasons). It is specific about the resource and action, making its purpose unmistakable even without sibling tools to distinguish from.
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?
The description includes an explicit use case: 'Use it to verify a backlink you were promised is actually followable.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but given no sibling tools exist, the guidance is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_link_followabilityChecks whether a website is readable and citable by AI systems (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, etc.)
Audit a page for search and AI answer engines; generate robots.txt, sitemap, head, llms.txt.
Where a link really goes, what the server says about itself, and what pages a site publishes.
Can AI crawlers read this site? GPTBot/ClaudeBot verdicts, robots vs edge blocking, 47k-domain index
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.