Skip to main content
Glama

scan_page

Scans a webpage or local file path for broken links, validates anchors, and optionally crawls recursively to catch link issues.

Instructions

Scan links in a webpage or local file path using linkinator. Checks for broken links, validates anchors, and can crawl recursively. Supports progress notifications for long-running scans.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesURL or local file path to scan
portNoServer port for local scanning (random port by default)
retryNoRetry HTTP 429 responses with retry-after header
recurseNoFollow links recursively on the same domain
timeoutNoRequest timeout in milliseconds (0 = no timeout)
checkCssNoExtract and validate URLs in CSS properties
markdownNoParse and scan markdown files
cleanUrlsNoEnable extensionless link resolution (e.g., /about → /about.html)
userAgentNoCustom user agent header
serverRootNoCustom disk location where the server starts
concurrencyNoNumber of simultaneous connections (default: 100)
linksToSkipNoURL patterns to exclude (regex strings)
retryErrorsNoRetry 5xx errors
checkFragmentsNoValidate URL anchor identifiers
directoryListingNoAuto-serve directory index files
retryErrorsCountNoRetry attempt limit
retryErrorsJitterNoRandom delay between retries in milliseconds
allowInsecureCertsNoAccept invalid SSL certificates

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behavioral traits: recursive crawling is supported and progress notifications are emitted for long-running scans. It omits what a scan returns (a list of failures with status codes?), whether external network access occurs, and rough performance expectations for an 18-option tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the capability details. Slightly list-like, but every clause adds information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 18-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential model: what is scanned, what is checked, and that long scans report progress. The main residual gap is the shape of the result, which an agent must discover empirically.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 18 parameters are already documented. The description nonetheless adds conceptual framing that maps to key flags — 'validates anchors' → checkFragments, 'crawl recursively' → recurse — helping an agent reason about which options to combine.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Scan links in a webpage or local file path') and names the underlying engine (linkinator), plus concrete capabilities: broken-link detection, anchor validation, recursive crawling. No siblings exist, so differentiation isn't required, but the scope is unmistakable.

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 capability list — you'd use it to check a page or file for broken links — and the note about progress notifications hints at long-running recursive scans. However, it never says when to prefer a shallow scan over recursion, when to enable markdown/CSS scanning, or what prerequisites a local path needs.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools