Scan one web page for dead links (4xx/5xx/unreachable) and mixed content (http subresources on an https page). Returns each link with its status. Single-page scan, not a crawl — pass the exact page URL. Rate-limited to a few scans per minute, so batch calls will be throttled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The exact page URL to scan, e.g. https://example.com/pricing |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description needs only to add extra context. It adds rate-limiting behavior and that each link is returned with its status. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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?
Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: main function, output, and constraints (single-page, rate limit). No redundant wording.
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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality, output format, scope limitation, and rate limit. With no output schema, it adequately explains what is returned.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the url parameter is already well described. The description reinforces the need for an exact page URL but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('one web page'), explicitly listing the two checks (dead links and mixed content). It clearly distinguishes from a crawl and from sibling tools focused on domain health or email blacklist.
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?
States 'Single-page scan, not a crawl' as an exclusion and instructs to pass the exact page URL. It also warns about rate limiting. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it misses the highest bar of explicit alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. The five check tools are differentiated by their target (agent readiness, broken links, domain health, email blacklist, MCP health), and asset/alert management tools have clear CRUD/lifecycle boundaries. No two tools appear to overlap.
All 16 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., check_domain_health, create_asset, list_my_alerts). The verbs are clear and consistently used, making the API predictable.
16 tools is well-scoped for a monitoring service that spans asset management, alert lifecycle, multiple diagnostic checks, vendor status, and plan listing. Every tool has a distinct role and earns its place without redundancy.
The tool surface covers full asset CRUD (create, list, update, delete, get checks), alert lifecycle (list, acknowledge, resolve), and a broad set of standalone checks. Minor gaps like a direct 'get asset' endpoint or manual re-check are absent, but core workflows are fully supported.
