web_freshnessFetch public HTTPS response metadata such as status, ETag and Last-Modified without downloading the full page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public HTTPS URL using a DNS hostname. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds that it only fetches headers, not the full page, which is a useful behavioral constraint but does not detail error handling or response format.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. No redundant words or clauses.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the key metadata returned (status, ETag, Last-Modified) but lacks details on response structure, error handling, or conditional usage. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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% with the parameter 'url' described as 'Public HTTPS URL using a DNS hostname.' The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool fetches public HTTPS response metadata like status, ETag, and Last-Modified without downloading the full page. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool compare_web_freshness by focusing on a single URL's freshness metadata.
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 description implies usage when only metadata is needed and not the full page, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over compare_web_freshness or provide conditions for non-use. The sibling is named but not contrasted.
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.
The two tools are clearly distinct: one fetches metadata for a single URL, the other compares metadata for up to five URLs. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both names use the same pattern: 'web_freshness' as base, with 'compare_' prefix for the comparison variant. Consistent verb_noun structure.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose of checking web freshness. A few more tools (e.g., bulk check) could be justified, but current count is reasonable.
Covers basic single-URL fetch and comparison, but lacks features like custom headers, additional metadata (e.g., content-type), or batch processing beyond five URLs. Some gaps exist.