Front-End Checklist

Audit Live URL

audit_url

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches a public HTTPS page and performs a non-exhaustive static review of its HTML, returning prioritized issues and fix guidance. Use it when the user requests an audit of a deployed public page. Localhost, private networks, and plain HTTP URLs are refused. It does not execute the page, measure live Core Web Vitals, or certify accessibility.

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": "audit_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Public URL to audit. Must use https://. Private IPs and localhost are blocked.
`focus`	No	Only check these categories (default: auto-detected from the fetched HTML).
`minPriority`	No	Lowest priority to report (default: medium).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`issues`	No
`source`	No
`summary`	No
`suggestions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / focus / description

Previous value: -"Optional: Focus review on specific categories (default: auto-detect from fetched HTML)"New value: +"Only check these categories (default: auto-detected from the fetched HTML)."

changedInput schema / properties / minPriority / description

Previous value: -"Optional: Minimum priority level to report (default: medium)"New value: +"Lowest priority to report (default: medium)."

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description usefully adds scope limits: static-only analysis, refusal of private/localhost/HTTP targets, and an explicit non-exhaustive caveat. It does not disclose rate limits, payload size caps, or timeout/fetch-failure behavior, which matter for a live network fetch.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with capability, then trigger, then boundaries. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what targets are refused, and what it explicitly does not measure — sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 all three parameters (url, focus, minPriority) are already fully documented with enum options and defaults. The description only restates the HTTPS-only constraint already present in the url schema, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 and resource ('Fetches a public HTTPS page and performs a non-exhaustive static review of its HTML') plus the output shape ('prioritized issues and fix guidance'). This clearly separates it from the rule-lookup and reference siblings, which do not fetch or analyze live pages.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user requests an audit of a deployed public page') and clear exclusions (no localhost, private networks, or plain HTTP; no execution, Core Web Vitals, or accessibility certification). It stops short of naming the overlapping sibling review_code as the alternative for local/source-level analysis.

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

All Front-End Checklist tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.