Check if a link on a live page is followable: rel tokens, meta robots and X-Robots-Tag
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
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.
check_link_followabilityCheck whether a link on a page is followableAInspectFetch 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.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
