Parse a site's sitemap.xml (following one level of sitemap-index nesting) and check the HTTP status of every listed URL. Concurrency-limited, capped at 200 URLs checked per call. Reports broken/redirecting URLs found in the sitemap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL of the sitemap.xml to validate (or any page URL — /sitemap.xml on that origin is used) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful non-obvious behavior: following one level of sitemap-index nesting, concurrency limiting, a per-call cap of 200 URLs, and reporting broken/redirecting URLs. This gives an agent a solid behavioral model, though it stops short of defining which HTTP statuses count as broken or redirecting.
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 compact sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the key constraints, and the output. It is front-loaded and free of filler.
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 tool with one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, this description covers input, behavior, limits, and high-level output. A little more detail about what 'reports' means structurally — e.g., whether truncation at the cap is indicated — would make it fully complete.
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%, including the notable fallback behavior that any page URL resolves to /sitemap.xml on that origin. The description reinforces the sitemap target but adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific action ('Parse... check the HTTP status'), a specific resource (a site's sitemap.xml), and the scope ('every listed URL'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like broken_link_check or check_robots_sitemap by focusing on sitemap-declared URLs rather than on-page links or sitemap discovery.
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?
Clear context is provided: use this when validating URLs found in a sitemap, with explicit behavioral constraints such as one level of index nesting and a 200-URL cap. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a preferred alternative among the many sibling tools.
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.