Lordevo Shop (x402 website checks)

Broken links on a page (up to 40 links checked) ($0.002/call)

broken_links

Read-onlyIdempotent

$0.002 per call (x402, USDC on Base; free trial: add "trial": true or use try_free). [Web and domain checks] Reads one page (robots.txt obeyed) and checks up to 40 of its unique links (internal first) with HEAD then GET: broken links with status or error, restricted (401/403/429/999), timeouts, links not requested because robots.txt disallows them, and counts. ~2-8 s.

Tool call template

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": "broken_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) URL or bare domain, e.g. https://example.com
`trial`	No	Optional. true = free if a trial call is left (3 per IP per UTC day), else the payment terms.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`tool`	No
`cache`	No
`_trial`	No	Present when the call was a free trial call.
`broken`	No
`checked`	No
`ok_count`	No
`provider`	No
`timeouts`	No
`price_usd`	No
`restricted`	No
`links_found`	No
`broken_count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / trial / description

Previous value: -"Optional. true = answer free if a trial call is left (3 per IP per UTC day); otherwise you get the payment terms."New value: +"Optional. true = free if a trial call is left (3 per IP per UTC day), else the payment terms."

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / trial

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. true = answer free if a trial call is left (3 per IP per UTC day); otherwise you get the payment terms.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "tool",
+        "url",
+        "checked",
+        "broken"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "accepts": {
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "error": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "resource": {
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "x402Version": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "x402Version",
+        "accepts"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "charged": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "error": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "properties": {
+    "_trial": {
+      "description": "Present when the call was a free trial call.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "broken": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "broken_count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "cache": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "checked": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "links_found": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "ok_count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "price_usd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "provider": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "restricted": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "timeouts": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent), it discloses method (HEAD then GET), the robots.txt policy, what counts as a result (broken, restricted 401/403/429/999, timeouts, robots-disallowed, counts), the runtime window (~2-8 s), and the pricing model. That is unusually rich behavioral context that annotations alone would not convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One dense paragraph with no filler sentences; pricing leads, then scope, method, and timing. The bracketed '[Web and domain checks]' tag and pricing prefix take the front slot ahead of the actual function, which is slightly suboptimal but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not document return shapes, yet it still summarizes result categories. Pricing, trial mechanics, robots handling, and runtime are all covered; the only meaningful gap is sibling differentiation for a family crowded with link-checking tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description adds only a pointer to the try_free alternative for the trial flag. 'Reads one page' reinforces that url is a single page rather than a site, which is a modest gain over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Reads one page ... and checks up to 40 of its unique links (internal first)'. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from the broader bulk siblings, but it never names link_check, links_batch, or site_check, so the boundary is left for the agent to infer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the one-page scope, the 40-link cap, and 'internal first' suggest when this tool fits. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no comparison to any of the many link-related siblings.

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

All Lordevo Shop (x402 website checks) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?