Tollmint

psych_page-audit

Audit a live page or raw HTML for conversion psychology. Returns measured cognitive load, detected dark patterns with the specific regulation each trips and the evidence found in the markup, a trust-signal gap list, and ranked findings tied to graded behavioural effects. Findings may only cite effects from our corpus, and citations are attached from our data rather than generated — so a reference is never invented. Names the patterns a static page cannot assess rather than implying the site is clean. Costs $0.120000 per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	Page to audit. Fetched respecting robots.txt.
`goal`	No	What this page is meant to achieve, e.g. "free trial signups from CTOs"
`html`	No	Raw HTML, if you already have it. Takes precedence over url.
`jurisdiction`	No	Regulatory lens for dark-pattern flags. EU is strictest.	EU

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.12/call), data sourcing (respects robots.txt, citations from corpus not invented), and limitations (names patterns it cannot assess). This goes well beyond the schema and provides critical behavioral context for an AI agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact (4-5 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds distinct value: overview, output list, citation policy, limitation disclosure, cost. No redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple output types, no output schema), the description provides a good overview of what is returned but lacks structural details (e.g., format, pagination). It does mention key behavioral aspects (cost, citation honesty). Slightly incomplete for a comprehensive tool, but sufficient for most use cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description's parameter details (url, goal, html, jurisdiction) exactly match the schema descriptions. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Audit a live page or raw HTML for conversion psychology.' It then enumerates specific outputs (cognitive load, dark patterns with regulation/evidence, trust-signal gaps, ranked findings), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on single aspects like psych_dark-pattern-detect or psych_cognitive-load.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies comprehensive use by listing multiple analysis types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. more specific siblings (e.g., 'for a full audit; use psych_dark-pattern-detect for only dark patterns'). No exclusions or alternatives are given, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tollmint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

All 20 tools have clearly distinct purposes, grouped by domain prefixes (content_ai, design_ai, legal, psych, ref, tollmint, web). Even similar-sounding tools like psych_dark-pattern-detect and psych_dark-patterns are differentiated as a live scanner versus a reference taxonomy. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming mostly follows a prefix_descriptive pattern, but some tools use hyphens (content_ai-score, design_ai-slop-detect) while others use underscores (legal_accessibility, psych_biases). This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score, but the pattern is still clear and readable.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, but each tool serves a specific, justifiable need across multiple domains (legal, psychology, content analysis, geocoding, internal). The count feels comprehensive rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all major areas implied by the domain prefixes: comprehensive legal compliance references, extensive psychology/behavioral design tools, content and design analysis, geocoding, and internal server management. No obvious gaps for the intended use cases.

Resources

Need Help?