Is this URL live right now? Returns HTTP status, the redirect chain, final URL, and round-trip latency in milliseconds.
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": "check_link"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (HTTP status, redirect chain, final URL, latency) but says nothing about side effects, timeouts, rate limits, redirect handling, or authentication needs.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return details following immediately.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does a good job enumerating what comes back (status, redirect chain, final URL, latency). Only behavioral caveats like timeouts or request semantics are missing for a network-probing tool.
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 0% for the single url parameter, so the description should compensate, but it only implies that a URL is the input. The parameter is largely self-explanatory from its name, so the gap is minor.
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+resource (check whether a URL is live) and names the diagnostics returned, so the tool's job is unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fetch or verify, which is the only gap.
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 rhetorical question 'Is this URL live right now?' implies the use case (connectivity/liveness troubleshooting), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the sibling alternatives fetch, verify, or check_change.
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.