Skip to main content
Glama

Utility Matrix

by io.github.helphub369
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Canonical URL Auditor

canonical-url-auditor
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit a page URL against its canonical tag. Detects missing canonical, self-referencing canonical, and relative URL issues.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page_urlYesThe page URL being audited
canonicalYesThe canonical URL found in the page (empty string if missing)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueYes
page_urlYes
severityYes
next_stepYes
next_step_urlYes
why_follow_upYes
interpretationYes
recommendationYes
canonical_foundNo
affiliate_contextNo
computation_basisYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / canonical / maxLength
      Added value: +2048
    • addedInput schema / properties / page_url / maxLength
      Added value: +2048
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "canonical_found",
-  "computation_basis",
-  "interpretation",
-  "issue",
-  "next_step",
-  "next_step_url",
-  "page_url",
-  "recommendation",
-  "severity",
-  "why_follow_up"
-]New value: +[
+  "computation_basis",
+  "interpretation",
+  "issue",
+  "next_step",
+  "next_step_url",
+  "page_url",
+  "recommendation",
+  "severity",
+  "why_follow_up"
+]
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / canonical / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "example"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / page_url / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "https://example.com/"
+]
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "affiliate_context": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "affiliate": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "cta_label": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "disclosure": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "framing": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "posture": {
+          "enum": [
+            "secondary"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "slot_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "url": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "variant": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "affiliate",
+        "cta_label",
+        "disclosure",
+        "framing",
+        "posture",
+        "slot_id",
+        "url",
+        "variant"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "canonical_found": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "computation_basis": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "interpretation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issue": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_step": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_step_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "page_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "recommendation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "severity": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "why_follow_up": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "canonical_found",
+    "computation_basis",
+    "interpretation",
+    "issue",
+    "next_step",
+    "next_step_url",
+    "page_url",
+    "recommendation",
+    "severity",
+    "why_follow_up"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the detection categories, though it does not say how relative-URL issues are resolved or reported (handled by the output schema).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the detection list follows immediately. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent, closed-world tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers both inputs and the outputs it produces. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including the empty-string convention for a missing canonical. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Audit a page URL against its canonical tag') and enumerates exactly the three conditions detected (missing, self-referencing, relative URL). This clearly distinguishes it from the calculator/linter/scanner siblings, none of which touch SEO canonicalization.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the description's scope but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer this audits a single page's canonical setup, but nothing routes it against siblings or states preconditions.

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

All Utility Matrix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources