Skip to main content
Glama

Validate the JSON-LD on a page

validate_structured_data
Read-only

Use this when someone wants their schema markup or JSON-LD checked on a specific page. Reports which schema types the page declares, which blocks fail to parse, and whether the fields that help an engine attribute a claim (sameAs, Organization identity, FAQ answers) are filled in. One fetch, no AI.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "validate_structured_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe site or page URL to check. A bare domain like example.com is fine.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: what the report contains (declared schema types, unparseable blocks, missing identity fields) and the operational trait "One fetch, no AI."

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, front-loaded with the when-to-use condition, followed by the return contents. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does so: it enumerates what gets reported (types, parse failures, attribution fields). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single url parameter is already documented, including the bare-domain allowance. The description only reinforces that it targets "a specific page" and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 (validate/check) and resource (JSON-LD / schema markup) scoped to a page. None of the siblings (crawler access, readiness, visibility, sitemap) handle structured data, so an agent can distinguish this tool without opening schemas.

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?

"Use this when someone wants their schema markup or JSON-LD checked on a specific page" gives a clear triggering context. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources