Follow a URL through every HTTP redirect hop and report the full chain, final destination, and issues like redirect loops, too many hops, or HTTPS-to-HTTP downgrades.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The starting URL to trace |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it does reveal what the tool detects (loops, hop limits, HTTPS downgrades), it doesn't disclose whether the request is actually performed (potential side effects, though likely just a GET), whether rate limits apply, what the output structure looks like, or how it reports issues. Since it performs a network request to an arbitrary user-supplied URL, this missing context is a notable gap.
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?
A single well-crafted sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then efficiently enumerates the four key output categories without waste. The structure is pristine — every clause adds meaningful information.
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?
The description covers what the tool does and what it reports, which is adequate for simple invocation. However, missing details such as whether it follows redirects client-side, whether it respects robots.txt, what constitutes 'too many hops' (configurable default?), and the output format would improve completeness. For a diagnostic tool with no output schema, the return format is genuinely undisclosed, and there's no way to know what the agent will receive back.
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% with a single 'url' parameter described as 'The starting URL to trace', which aligns perfectly with the description's 'Follow a URL through every HTTP redirect hop'. The description and schema reinforce each other without contradiction, and at 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional parameter-level detail is needed.
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 ('Follow') with a clear resource ('URL through every HTTP redirect hop') followed by a precise list of outputs (full chain, final destination, loops, too many hops, HTTPS-to-HTTP downgrades). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like broken_link_check and sitemap_url_validator, which have different purposes.
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 makes the use case evident: when you need to trace redirect behavior of a URL. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives for near-overlapping tasks like broken_link_check (which may also encounter redirects) or url_to_markdown. The use case is clear but no exclusion criteria are given.
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.
Many tools audit overlapping site signals (seo_audit vs structured_data_extract vs tech_stack_fingerprint; page_performance_check vs pagespeed_insights; ssl_cert_check vs ssl_labs_grade; broken_link_check vs sitemap_url_validator), so an agent could initially pick the wrong one. Descriptions usually clarify the distinction, but the boundaries are not always obvious.
Most names follow a snake_case target+operation pattern (ssl_cert_check, email_deliverability_check), but check_open_ports and check_robots_sitemap reverse the order, and the action suffixes vary widely (check, audit, validate, lookup, extract, grade, report, insights). Still readable, but not a single predictable convention.
At 29 tools, the server is above the 25-tool threshold and feels like an undifferentiated grab bag of single-purpose audits rather than a tightly scoped toolkit. Many checks could be consolidated (e.g. the separate SSL and performance tools, or domain_report versus its component checks).
For a web/domain/email/security diagnostics toolbelt, the coverage is unusually broad: DNS, TLS, email, SEO, structured data, vulnerabilities, ports, redirects, and more are all represented. Minor gaps exist (no generic HTTP request/debug tool, no zone-transfer or full WHOIS history), but agents can accomplish most diagnostic workflows without hitting dead ends.