Skip to main content
Glama

ZadenWorks

by io.github.ZadenGG

check_links

Check every link on a page and report which are broken. Each anchor is resolved to an absolute URL, de-duplicated, and checked with a HEAD request (falling back to GET where the server rejects HEAD), returning its status code, whether it redirected, response time and a severity. Gives a 0-100 score and a letter grade per page. Anchors, mailto: and tel: links are excluded because they cannot be broken. Up to 5 pages and 40 link checks per call. Paid: $0.02 per call in USDC on Base via x402 — call once without x_payment to receive the payment challenge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYesPages to check (max 5)
x_paymentNoOptional X-PAYMENT header value from a completed x402 payment. Omit on first call to receive the payment challenge; complete the payment with your x402 wallet tooling, then retry with this set.
maxLinksPerPageNo
checkExternalLinksNoAlso check links pointing off-site

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the network behavior (HEAD/GET requests), payment requirement ($0.02 per call via x402), and response details (status, redirect, time, severity, score). It does not mention data persistence or side effects beyond the request itself, but the essential behavior is well covered.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is somewhat verbose and repeats similar information (e.g., 'Each anchor is resolved...' and 'Gives a 0-100 score...') but every sentence adds useful detail about behavior, payments, or limits. It could be tightened without losing information, but it is not redundant enough to harm usability.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description fully explains the input constraints, payment challenge flow, link-checking methodology, output metrics (status, redirect, time, severity, score, grade), and exclusions. Even without an output schema, the description gives a complete picture of what the tool does and what to expect, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. 'urls' and 'x_payment' have thorough descriptions, 'checkExternalLinks' is clearly described, and 'maxLinksPerPage' lacks a description but its name and min/max/default constraints make its meaning unambiguous. Overall parameter intent is well conveyed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('links'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from SEO, sitemap, and rendering tools by focusing on broken-link detection with detailed methodology. The role is unmistakable even without sibling names.

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 explains the workflow (first call without x_payment to get challenge, then retry with payment), and clarifies exclusions (anchors, mailto, tel) and constraints (max pages, max links). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the unique focus on link integrity is evident and sufficient for most selection scenarios.

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

All ZadenWorks toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from SEO audits to link checking, content comparison, accessibility scans, structured data validation, and claim verification. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names mostly follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (audit_seo, check_links, compare_pages). Minor deviations like rank_x402_services and list_rank_categories are slightly less uniform but still readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools cover a broad but focused range of web page analysis and auditing workflows without feeling bloated. The count is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a specialized service.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for the domain: covers SEO, sitemaps, links, content, rendering, accessibility, structured data, claims, and monitoring. No critical dead ends or obvious missing operations for typical use cases.

Resources