check_linkCheck a URL's health: follows the redirect chain, reports the final status and URL, extracts the page , and flags likely paywalls. Cached for 6h.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The absolute URL to check. | |
| fresh | No | Bypass the 6h cache and re-check now. | |
| maxRedirects | No | Maximum redirect hops to follow. | |
| followRedirects | No | Follow 3xx redirects to the final destination. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses redirect following, cache duration, and extraction of title/paywall flags. No annotations provided, but description covers key behaviors. Could mention failure handling.
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 sentences, front-loaded with main action, no wasted words.
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?
No output schema, but description hints at return values (status, URL, title, paywall flag). Low complexity, complete for purpose.
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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds context about what the tool does with the URL (redirect chain, extraction), enriching beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states it checks URL health, follows redirects, reports status, extracts title, and flags paywalls. It distinguishes from siblings 'convert' and 'render' which are unrelated.
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: used for checking URLs. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: check_link checks URL health, convert transforms content formats, render creates screenshots/PDFs. No overlap in functionality.
Two tools use verb_noun pattern (check_link, render) while one is a single verb (convert). Mostly consistent but minor deviation.
With only 3 tools, the server is small but usable. It covers basic web utilities, though additional tools like extract_text could enhance scope.
The tool set covers link checking, format conversion, and web rendering. No obvious dead ends for these operations, though some related tasks (e.g., validate HTML) are absent.