wrapguard-mcp

Verify wrap regression threshold

verify_wrap_regression

Read-only

Audit a page for split words and embedded newlines, and evaluate results against error/warning thresholds to gate CI or release builds.

Instructions

Audit a page and evaluate it against explicit error/warning thresholds for CI or release gates.

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "verify_wrap_regression"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`locale`	No
`target`	Yes	Allowed local HTML path, file URL, or allowlisted HTTP(S) URL
`maxErrors`	No
`viewports`	No
`maxWarnings`	No
`screenshotDir`	No
`ignoreSelectors`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that thresholds are involved, but it does not explain pass/fail behavior, exit semantics, or how error/warning counts are evaluated across viewports.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the purpose and intended usage context economically.

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?

For a tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and several sibling tools, this high-level description is under-specified. It omits what the output/result looks like, how thresholds are applied, and how this relates to audit_page or detect_midword_breaks.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 14%, so the description should compensate for seven parameters, but it only hints at error/warning thresholds. It leaves locale, viewports, screenshotDir, ignoreSelectors, and the target constraints mostly unexplained.

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?

The description states a clear action and resource: audit a page and evaluate it against explicit error/warning thresholds for CI or release gates. This distinguishes it from generic audit_page by emphasizing threshold-based regression checking, though it relies on the title for the wrap-specific focus.

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?

The phrase 'for CI or release gates' gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server