broken_link_check[FREE] Find broken links (404, 500, timeout) on any page. FR: Trouvez les liens cassés sur n'importe quelle page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to check for broken links |
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 indicates a read-only operation ('find') and specifies some detail about what qualifies as a broken link (404, 500, timeout). However, it does not mention potential behaviors like redirect handling, rate limits, or output format, which would add transparency.
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 extremely concise: one English sentence and a French translation. It front-loads the key information (free, purpose, error types, scope) with no wasted words. The French repetition adds minimal value for an agent but does not harm conciseness.
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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, what inputs it accepts, and what constitutes a broken link. It does not specify the output format, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 100% (the 'url' parameter is described as 'The URL to check for broken links'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('broken links'), and the scope ('on any page'). It also lists concrete error types (404, 500, timeout), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like noindex_checker or page_speed_check.
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 implies when to use the tool (to check a page for broken links) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, and sibling tools are not referenced.
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.
Most tools have distinct targets, but seo_audit, seo_plan, and seo_score overlap in purpose—all evaluate SEO health with varying depth, which could confuse an agent. noindex_checker and ai_visibility_score also both touch indexing/crawling, though from different angles.
Tool names are predominantly descriptive noun phrases in snake_case (broken_link_check, keyword_generator, seo_audit), but 'discover' is a lone verb and there's a mix of suffixes (_check, _analyzer, _validator, _score). Still, the pattern is readable and mostly consistent.
With 12 tools, the server covers a broad SEO toolkit without overwhelming. Each tool adds a distinct diagnostic capability, and the count fits well within the ideal 3-15 range.
The suite covers crawling, indexing, content, schema, performance, and overall audits—solid diagnostic coverage. Minor gaps like sitemap validation or backlink analysis exist, but the core SEO workflows are well supported.