Check one web page for broken links, redirect chains hop by hop and mixed content. Free, no key.
Scored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another. Its description is specific about scope (one page, up to 200 links, no crawling) and behavior.
The single name check_links follows a clear verb_noun convention and is readable and self-descriptive. With only one tool there is no inconsistency to find.
A single tool is borderline thin even for a narrow link-checking service; there is no capability to batch URLs, check a list, or crawl, which an agent might reasonably expect. It is not an extreme mismatch, but the surface feels minimal.
The one operation it exposes (single-page link/asset health check with redirects, mixed content, and bot-block detection) is well-covered with clear limits and safety guards. Minor gaps exist around multi-URL or multi-page checking, which agents must work around by calling the tool repeatedly.
Fetch ONE public web page and check up to 200 of its links and assets: broken links (4xx/5xx, hosts that don't exist, connection errors, timeouts), redirect chains hop by hop (long chains, loops, https-to-http downgrades), mixed content and links that may just block bots (401/403/429, flagged maybe_bot_blocked). Not a crawler: other pages are not visited. Private/loopback/metadata targets are refused, including names that resolve to them. Takes up to about 45 seconds. Returns counts plus up to 25 problem links. Read-only. Same engine and limits as GET /api/check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | How many links to check, 1-200 (default 200). | |
| url | Yes | Public http(s) page URL, e.g. https://example.com/. A URL without a scheme is treated as https://. | |
| assets | No | Also check images, scripts, stylesheets, iframes and media (default true). false = only <a>/<area> links. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The page URL as requested. |
| summary | Yes | Counts: linksFound, uniqueLinks, checked, ok, redirected, broken, blocked, unchecked, mixedContent, insecureLinks, longChains, redirectLoops, maybeBotBlocked, resolvesPrivate. |
| version | No | |
| problems | Yes | Links needing attention (broken first, then blocked, unchecked, redirects with flags such as long_chain or https_downgrade, then other flagged links). At most 25 here; see problems_total. |
| final_url | No | |
| page_hops | No | |
| truncated | Yes | True when not every link on the page was checked (link cap, budget or time limit). |
| checked_at | No | |
| page_status | Yes | |
| page_redirects | No | |
| problems_total | Yes | |
| not_checked_count | No | |
| problems_returned | No | |
| truncated_reasons | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, yet the description adds runtime ('up to about 45 seconds'), output volume ('counts plus up to 25 problem links'), the SSRF-style refusal of loopback/metadata targets, and the meaning of the maybe_bot_blocked flag. This is behavior beyond what the annotations declare.
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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the single-page scope, then the problem taxonomy, then the exclusion and runtime. Every clause carries an operational fact; nothing is padding.
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?
An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, and the description still covers runtime, result size, target restrictions, and flag semantics. Nothing an agent needs to decide or call correctly is missing.
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%, so the baseline is 3; however the description grounds the `assets` parameter by naming the asset classes checked (images, scripts, stylesheets, iframes, media) and ties `max` to the 200-link cap and the 401/403/429 classification. It clarifies intent without restating schema syntax.
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 ('Fetch ONE public web page and check ... its links and assets') and immediately bounds scope ('Not a crawler: other pages are not visited'). The uppercase ONE signals single-page semantics that could not be inferred from the name alone.
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?
It gives explicit exclusions — not a crawler, private/loopback/metadata targets refused — which tells the agent when the call will fail. There are no sibling tools to route against, and the description never states the positive use case that selects this over any other approach, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_linksCrawl a site for broken links, 404s, dead images, redirect chains and slow pages, with sources
Free check of one site for orphan pages, broken internal links and sitemap problems.
Checks a public website in six areas and returns scores from 0 to 100. Free, no key needed.
Indexability, robots.txt, sitemap, TLS, domain expiry and Googlebot-vs-browser checks. No account.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.