Skip to main content
Glama

HTML canonical link count, markup discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

canonical-ok

HTML canonical link count, markup discarded

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref name; discarded after the shape check
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
cityNoCity name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
feedNoPublic RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
pathNoFile path to check; no disk access
zoneNoIANA timezone name
queryNoSearch text; discarded after the length check
websiteNoPublic https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / website
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals one useful behavior ('markup discarded') but does not mention network access, read-only guarantees, response shape, error behavior, or any side effects. The 'discarded' wording suggests no HTML is returned, but that is too thin for a tool that likely fetches or inspects external content.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The text is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler words. However, it is under-specified to the point of vagueness; the fragment 'HTML canonical link count, markup discarded' reads more like a label than a tool definition, so the brevity is not fully earned.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not enough to guide correct invocation. The agent does not know which parameter to pass, what the output format is, whether a network request occurs, or how to interpret the count. Some context is present, but the definition is far from complete.

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?

The input schema already describes all 10 parameters, so the high schema coverage earns the baseline of 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and, critically, does not identify which parameter (e.g., url or website) is the intended HTML source. This forces the agent to guess the relevant input despite the otherwise well-documented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description communicates that the tool counts canonical links in HTML and discards the markup itself, so the core function is recognizable. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an actionable statement and never says which input parameter supplies the HTML or how it is obtained. It also does not clearly distinguish canonical-ok from url-related siblings such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok beyond mentioning a count.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. An agent is left to infer that this is for counting canonical links, but nothing in the description says when it should be preferred over other URL/HTML inspection tools.

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

All HTML canonical link count, markup discarded toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources