fbc-guard
Provides static checks for Meta click ID tracking code, validating that fbclid is correctly stored in the _fbc cookie and that _fbp cookies follow Meta's fbc/fbp parameter requirements.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@fbc-guardscan my landing page HTML for _fbc cookie bugs before I ship it"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
fbc-guard
Static checks for the landing-page code that stores Meta's click ID.
Documentation and background: adsandcode.com/en/open-source/fbc-guard
fbc-guard reads the HTML and JavaScript that turn the fbclid URL parameter into the _fbc
cookie (and, if you write it yourself, the _fbp cookie), and flags the known
ways that code changes or loses the click ID.
It runs as an MCP server, so an AI assistant can check tracking code while it writes or reviews a page, and as a command-line tool for CI.
The problem it addresses
When someone clicks a Meta ad, the landing page URL carries an fbclid
parameter. Your page, or the Meta Pixel, stores it in a first-party _fbc
cookie in the form fb.<subdomainIndex>.<creationTime>.<fbclid>, and later
events send that value to Meta in the fbc parameter.
Hand-written versions of this code tend to go wrong in a few specific ways:
They keep an older click ID when a returning visitor arrives from a different ad, so the conversion is attributed to the earlier ad.
They change the click ID on the way through: decode it again, change its case, or cut it short.
They write
creationTimein seconds instead of milliseconds, or hard-codesubdomainIndex.
Advertisers report seeing an Events Manager diagnostic about a modified fbclid
in the fbc parameter. Meta's documentation does not list what causes it. The
first two mistakes above alter or replace the click ID between the URL and the
event, so they are worth ruling out when you see it.
fbc-guard finds these patterns in source code before it ships. It does not run the code and it sends nothing to Meta.
Related MCP server: webaudit-mcp
Install
MCP server
Add this to your MCP client configuration (Claude Desktop, Cursor, and other
clients that read an mcpServers block):
{
"mcpServers": {
"fbc-guard": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-server-fbc-guard"]
}
}
}Claude Code:
claude mcp add fbc-guard -- npx -y mcp-server-fbc-guardRequires Node.js 18 or later.
Command line
npx -y -p mcp-server-fbc-guard fbc-guard https://your-landing-page.example/
# or install it
npm install -g mcp-server-fbc-guard
fbc-guard ./dist/index.html ./dist/js/tracking.jsAs a library
import { checkCode } from "mcp-server-fbc-guard";
const result = checkCode(htmlOrJs); // { status, failed, unknown, warnings, rules }The package entry point is the rules module only. Importing it does not start the MCP server, read files or touch the network.
MCP tools
Tool | Input | What it does |
|
| Runs every rule on the source you pass. No network access. |
|
| Fetches the page and every same-origin |
Both return JSON:
{
"status": "fail",
"failed": ["FBC-01"],
"unknown": [],
"warnings": ["FBC-06"],
"rules": [
{
"id": "FBC-01",
"title": "A new fbclid must overwrite an older _fbc cookie",
"status": "fail",
"evidence": "indexOf('_fbc=')<0",
"protects": "If the cookie is only written when it is missing, ...",
"basis": "official",
"severity": "error",
"reference": "https://developers.facebook.com/documentation/ads-commerce/conversions-api/parameters/fbp-and-fbc"
}
]
}Each rule's status is pass, fail, unknown or warn. warn comes only
from warning-level rules (FBC-06); it is listed under warnings and never
changes the overall status or the exit code.
The overall status is pass, fail, unknown, or not_applicable.
unknownmeans no rule failed, but at least one rule could not decide. Today only FBC-01 can return it, when it cannot tell which variable holds thefbclidfrom the URL. The rule'sevidencesays what could not be resolved.not_applicablemeans the string_fbcdoes not appear anywhere in what was scanned, so no rule was evaluated. The code may live somewhere the scan cannot see.
Neither is a pass.
In check_fbc_code, kind: "auto" reads the input as HTML when it starts with
< and analyses its inline <script> bodies, and reads anything else as
JavaScript.
The server runs its own negative tests at startup and refuses to start if any rule no longer fails on the code it is supposed to catch.
Command line
fbc-guard <url|file> [<url|file> ...] check pages (http/https) or local files
fbc-guard --json <url|file> [...] print JSON instead of text
fbc-guard --allow-private <url> [...] also allow localhost and private-network URLs
fbc-guard --selftest run only the negative tests
fbc-guard --help | --versionEach target is judged separately. URLs are fetched together with their
same-origin scripts. Local files are scanned as they are, without following
<script src>, so list your JavaScript files as well. A local file is read as
JavaScript when its extension is .js, .mjs, .cjs, .jsx, .ts, .mts,
.cts or .tsx, as HTML when it is .html, .htm, .xhtml, .shtml or
.php, and otherwise by its first character, as in check_fbc_code.
Before judging any target the CLI runs the same negative tests as the server. If they fail, it prints which test failed and exits with code 2 without giving a verdict.
Exit code | Meaning |
0 | No error-level rule failed on any target. This includes targets with warnings only (FBC-06), |
1 | At least one rule failed on at least one target |
2 | The negative tests failed, the arguments were invalid (including |
In CI:
npx -y -p mcp-server-fbc-guard fbc-guard ./public/index.html ./public/js/tracking.jsRules
Each rule cites Meta's reference page,
ClickID and the fbp and fbc Parameters
(the older URL under /docs/marketing-api/conversions-api/parameters/fbp-and-fbc/
redirects there). The Basis column says how directly that page supports the
rule:
Official: the page states the requirement.
Derived: the page states a general requirement; applying it to this specific code pattern is our reading.
Observed in practice: not stated by Meta; a mistake seen in real implementations.
ID | Flags | Severity | Basis |
FBC-01 | The | error | Official |
FBC-02 |
| error | Derived |
FBC-03 |
| error | Official |
FBC-04 |
| error | Derived |
FBC-05 | A seconds timestamp in the statement that builds an | error | Official |
FBC-06 | A literal digit as | warning | Observed in practice |
FBP-01 | The same as FBC-05, for | error | Official |
An error-level rule that fires fails the check (exit code 1). A warning-level
rule that fires is reported with status warn and does not change the result
or the exit code.
The rules read the source through a small scanner, not a JavaScript parser. Nothing inside a JavaScript comment counts, and neither does markup inside an HTML comment.
FBC-02, FBC-03 and FBC-04 read only the JavaScript (inline
<script>bodies and fetched script files) and also ignore string contents, so a message such as'do not call decodeURIComponent(fbclid)'does not trigger them.FBC-06 and the write-only-if-missing check of FBC-01 look for text that lives inside string literals, so they read the whole document with comments removed and string contents kept.
FBC-01, FBC-05 and FBP-01 also use the scanner to find where a statement starts and ends.
FBC-01: a new fbclid must overwrite an older _fbc cookie
Code written as "set the cookie if there is none" keeps the first click ID
forever. A visitor who returns through a different ad still carries the old
one, and the conversion is credited to the earlier ad. Meta's page lists, as a
case where the cookie should be set, a URL fbclid that
"isn't equal to the corresponding value in the _fbc cookie value".
How the rule decides:
It finds the variables that hold the click ID from the URL: assigned from
.get('fbclid'),['fbclid']or.fbclid, from amatch,split,execor similar call on text containingfbclid=, or copied from one of those (var f = fbclid || ''). A variable or parameter literally namedfbclidalso counts.It looks for a
!==,!=,===or==comparison between one of those variables and something that is not a literal.id !== fandif (stored === clickId) return;count;f !== ''andf != nulldo not.A comparison passes the rule. That includes "set the cookie if it is missing or different", written as
indexOf('_fbc=') < 0 || id !== f.Without a comparison, the rule fails if it finds the write-only-if-missing pattern
indexOf('_fbc=') < 0, or if it found a click ID variable.If it found neither a click ID variable nor that pattern, the status is
unknown, with an explanation. Exit code 0.
FBC-02: do not URL-decode fbclid a second time
URLSearchParams.get() already returns a decoded value. Decoding it again
either leaves it unchanged or changes it, and decodeURIComponent throws on a
lone %, which stops the rest of the script. Meta's page says to
"do not apply any modifications before using" the click ID. It does not
mention decoding specifically; treating a second decode as a modification is
our reading.
FBC-03: do not change the case of fbclid
Meta's page states "ClickID value is case sensitive" and names lower- and upper-casing as modifications to avoid.
FBC-04: do not truncate fbclid
A shortened click ID is a modified click ID. Meta's page says to "do not apply any modifications before using" it; truncation is not named specifically.
FBC-05: _fbc creationTime must be in milliseconds
Meta's page defines it: "creationTime is the UNIX time since epoch in
milliseconds". Date.now() already returns milliseconds; dividing by 1000
writes seconds.
The rule looks at each statement that contains an _fbc=fb. string or
template literal and fails if that statement divides a millisecond clock by
1000:
clocks:
Date.now(),new Date(),(new Date),new Date().getTime(),(new Date).getTime(),new Date().valueOf(),+new Date, andd.getTime()/d.valueOf()on a variable (anew Date(...)built from arguments is a fixed moment, not the clock, and is not matched);divisors:
/1000or/1e3, with or without spaces, whatever wraps it (Math.floor,Math.round,Math.trunc,parseInt,|0,~~);written directly in the concatenation or template literal, or stored in a variable first and concatenated in. For a variable, the last assignment before the statement is the one that counts.
It does not fire on Date.now() alone, on /1000 in other statements (a
countdown timer elsewhere in the file), on a commented-out line, or on a time
difference such as (end - Date.now()) / 1000, which is a duration like
max-age, not a timestamp.
FBC-06 (warning): check a hard-coded subdomainIndex in the _fbc cookie
Meta's page says "subdomainIndex is which domain the cookie is defined on",
with com as 0, example.com as 1 and www.example.com as 2. A literal digit
is only correct while the cookie is always set on a domain of that level. The
page also says to use 1 when the value is generated on a server without
saving a cookie, its own examples use fb.1., and it does not say a
mismatched value is rejected. So a literal is not wrong in itself, and this
rule is a warning, not a failure: it points at a value worth checking against
the domain the cookie is actually set on.
FBP-01: _fbp creationTime must be in milliseconds
The fbp section of the same page uses the same definition:
"creationTime is the UNIX time since epoch in milliseconds". This only
matters if your own code writes _fbp; normally the Meta Pixel does.
Detection works as in FBC-05, on statements containing _fbp=fb..
Code that passes every rule
This is the exact snippet the self-test runs through every rule, and the publish check refuses to release a README in which it differs.
<script>
(function () {
// URLSearchParams.get() already returns the decoded value. Use it as is.
var fbclid = new URLSearchParams(location.search).get('fbclid');
if (!fbclid) return;
// The click ID in an existing _fbc cookie is its fourth field:
// fb.<subdomainIndex>.<creationTime>.<fbclid>
var current = (document.cookie.match(/(?:^|;\s*)_fbc=([^;]*)/) || [])[1] || '';
var storedId = current ? current.split('.')[3] : '';
// A different click replaces the stored one. The same click keeps it.
if (storedId !== fbclid) {
// Use the widest domain the browser accepts for a cookie, and derive
// subdomainIndex from it: example.com is 1, www.example.com is 2.
var host = location.hostname, parts = host.split('.');
var domain = host, domainAttr = '';
for (var i = parts.length - 2; i >= 0; i--) {
var candidate = parts.slice(i).join('.');
document.cookie = 'cookie_domain_probe=1;path=/;domain=' + candidate;
if (document.cookie.indexOf('cookie_domain_probe=1') >= 0) {
document.cookie = 'cookie_domain_probe=;path=/;domain=' + candidate + ';max-age=0';
domain = candidate;
domainAttr = ';domain=' + candidate;
break;
}
}
var subdomainIndex = domain.split('.').length - 1;
// creationTime is Date.now(): milliseconds, not seconds. 90 days = 7776000 s.
document.cookie = '_fbc=fb.' + subdomainIndex + '.' + Date.now() + '.' + fbclid +
';path=/' + domainAttr + ';max-age=7776000;SameSite=Lax';
}
})();
</script>Notes on the example:
Which part of the cookie is the click ID. The example takes the fourth dot-separated segment. Meta's fbc page instead says the click ID is the part of the cookie value after the last dot. The two differ when Meta's Parameter Builder library wrote the cookie: its documented format is
fb.${subdomain_index}.${creation_time}.${fbclid}.${appendix}, so the part after the last dot is the appendix, not the click ID. The fourth segment is the click ID in both formats.Browsers refuse cookies on public suffixes such as
comorcom.tw, so the loop settles on the registrable domain (example.com,example.com.tw).Prefer a server-set cookie. Meta's fbc page recommends setting
_fbcas an HTTP cookie in the response headers, with a 90-day expiration, when the request arrives withfbclid. The example writes it withdocument.cookie, which is what you can do from a static page, and browsers limit that: WebKit's Intelligent Tracking Prevention 2.2 says "persistent cookies set through document.cookie are capped to one day of storage" when a domain it classifies as a cross-site tracker sent the visitor and the landing URL has a query string or fragment. An ad click always carriesfbclidin the query string, so whenever ITP has classified the referring site that way, the 90 days written by this script become one day in Safari. If you control the server, set the cookie there.If the Meta Pixel is installed it manages
_fbcand_fbpitself. Code like this is for pages that capture the click ID without the Pixel, for example to forward it through the Conversions API.
Changes from the original rule set
This package started as an in-house script with the same rule IDs. For the public release, several rules were reworked because they missed real mistakes or flagged correct code.
FBC-05 and FBP-01 used to catch
Date.now()/1000only inside the same string or template literal as_fbc=fb./_fbp=fb.. The common concatenated form'_fbc=fb.' + i + '.' + Math.floor(Date.now()/1000)passed. They now check the whole statement and seconds stored in a variable, as described above, and ignore comments.FBC-01 used to accept only
!==or!=next to a variable literally namedfbclid, so correct code such asif (id !== f)orif (stored === fbclid) return;failed. It now resolves which variable holds the click ID, accepts all four comparison operators, and reportsunknowninstead of failing when it cannot resolve the variable.FBC-06 used to fail. Because Meta itself uses
fb.1.in its examples and for server-generated values, it is now a warning that does not change the exit code.FBC-02, FBC-03, FBC-04 and FBC-06 used to match anywhere in the text, including comments, so a comment that warned against a mistake triggered the rule. They now skip comments, and FBC-02 to FBC-04 also skip string contents.
On the original test fixtures every rule gives the same result as before,
except that FBC-06 now reports warn where it used to report fail.
Limitations
This is static analysis of source text, not execution. Read a pass as "none of the known mistakes were found in the shapes this tool recognises", not as "this code is correct".
False negatives. Minified, bundled or obfuscated code and code assembled at runtime can hide a mistake. FBC-02, FBC-03 and FBC-04 only look at a variable literally named
fbclid, sof.toLowerCase()is not caught. FBC-05 and FBP-01 need the_fbc=fb./_fbp=fb.text in one string or template literal; a value assembled as'_fbc=' + valueor withjoin('.')is not checked, and seconds returned from a helper function are not traced. Variable tracking is textual: it takes the last assignment before the statement and does not follow scopes or branches.False positives. FBC-01 accepts any comparison between the click ID and a non-literal, so it cannot tell whether the other side really is the stored cookie value. That makes a false pass more likely than a false failure. A seconds variable that is reassigned inside a branch can be judged by the wrong assignment.
HTML or JavaScript. Inline event handler attributes (
onclick="...") are not analysed by FBC-01 to FBC-05 or FBP-01. A JavaScript file that starts with<is read as HTML unless you passkind: "js"or give it a.jsextension.Not applicable is not a pass. If
_fbcdoes not appear in what was scanned, nothing is judged. Tracking code in a tag manager container, a cross-origin script, or a server-side integration is invisible to this scan.URL scanning limits. Only same-origin scripts are fetched, at most 20, up to 2 MB each after decompression, with a 30-second timeout per request, at most 5 redirects, and a mobile Safari user agent. Cross-origin scripts are never fetched; they are listed under
skipped_scripts. A same-origin script that redirects to another origin is not followed. Markup served only after JavaScript runs is not seen. Proxy environment variables are not used.No runtime check. Static analysis cannot tell you what value is actually sent. To confirm, load the page in a browser with an old
_fbccookie already set and a realisticfbclidin the URL, and compare what your code sends with the URL value character by character. Block requests to Meta while testing so test click IDs are not reported as real events.
Network safety
check_fbc_url and the CLI's URL mode fetch whatever URL they are given, and
an AI agent may be the one choosing it. To keep that from becoming a way into
cloud metadata endpoints, localhost services or a private network, fetching is
limited to public hosts by default:
Only
httpandhttpsURLs are accepted.A connection is refused when the host is, or resolves to, a loopback, private (
10/8,172.16/12,192.168/16,fc00::/7), link-local (169.254/16,fe80::/10), carrier-grade NAT (100.64/10),0.0.0.0/8, multicast, reserved or unspecified address, including those addresses written inside IPv6 (::ffff:127.0.0.1, NAT64, 6to4). If any address a name resolves to is refused, the name is refused.Redirects are followed by hand, at most 5, and every hop is checked the same way, as is every same-origin script.
A refused address, a DNS failure, a refused or reset connection, a TLS error and a timeout all return the same error text, so the tool cannot be used to tell open ports from closed ones by its messages.
To check a page on your own machine or intranet, opt in: --allow-private on
the command line, or FBC_GUARD_ALLOW_PRIVATE=1 in the MCP server's
environment:
{
"mcpServers": {
"fbc-guard": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-server-fbc-guard"],
"env": { "FBC_GUARD_ALLOW_PRIVATE": "1" }
}
}
}With the opt-in, no address is refused.
Residual risks:
DNS rebinding. A hostname can resolve to a public address when checked and a private one when connected. The address check runs inside the connection's own DNS lookup, on the addresses the socket is about to use, and every redirect hop and script is resolved and checked again, so a changing answer cannot slip between a check and a connection. This depends on Node.js calling that lookup for every connection, which it does for host names; IP literals are checked before connecting. Treat it as a mitigation, not a guarantee.
Timing. A refused address fails at once, while an unreachable public host may take up to the 30-second timeout, so timing still reveals something even though the messages do not.
Public hosts that reach inward. A public URL whose own server fetches an internal resource on your behalf (an open proxy, for example) is outside what an address check can see.
Development
npm ci
npm run build
npm run selftest # negative tests: every rule must fail on its own fixture
node scripts/smoke.mjs # talks to the built server over stdio, including a local HTTP check
node scripts/check-publish-ready.mjs # package and MCP Registry metadata checksLicense
MIT. See LICENSE.
Maintainer
Built and maintained by Ads & Code.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_fbc_codeA
Statically check HTML or JavaScript that reads fbclid from the URL and writes Meta's _fbc click ID cookie (and optionally _fbp). It catches the mistakes that make Meta Events Manager report a modified fbclid or attribute a conversion to the wrong ad: keeping an old click ID when a visitor arrives from a new ad, decoding, re-casing or truncating the click ID, writing creationTime in seconds instead of milliseconds, and hard-coding subdomainIndex. Rules: FBC-01: A new fbclid must overwrite an older _fbc cookie. FBC-02: Do not URL-decode fbclid a second time. FBC-03: Do not change the case of fbclid. FBC-04: Do not truncate fbclid. FBC-05: _fbc creationTime must be in milliseconds. FBC-06: Check that a hard-coded subdomainIndex matches the cookie domain. FBP-01: _fbp creationTime must be in milliseconds. Returns JSON with status ("pass", "fail", "unknown" or "not_applicable"), failed, unknown and warnings (rule IDs), and rules (one entry per rule with status "pass", "fail", "unknown" or "warn", evidence, what it protects against, severity, and a link to Meta's documentation). "unknown" means no rule failed but at least one could not decide, for example FBC-01 when it cannot tell which variable holds the fbclid from the URL. "not_applicable" means no _fbc appeared in the content, so nothing was judged. Neither is a pass. "warn" comes from a warning-level rule (FBC-06) and never changes the overall status. This is static analysis of source text, not execution: minified, bundled or obfuscated code can hide a mistake, so a pass is not proof of correctness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | HTML or JavaScript source to check. Include every file that touches fbclid, _fbc or _fbp, concatenated. | |
| kind | No | How to read `code`. "html": analyse the inline <script> bodies. "js": analyse it as JavaScript. "auto": HTML if it starts with "<", JavaScript otherwise. | auto |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the returned JSON shape, the meaning of `pass`, `fail`, `unknown`, `not_applicable`, and `warn`, and warns that minified, bundled, or obfuscated code can hide mistakes so a pass is not proof of correctness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but front-loaded and dense: purpose first, then the failures it catches, then rules, then return semantics and limitations. Every section adds useful selection or interpretation context, and there is no repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain returns and limitations itself. It does both, including status semantics and the static-analysis caveat, leaving no major gap for an agent to call or interpret the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines `code` and `kind` in detail. The description does not add meaningfully more parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: statically check HTML or JavaScript involving `fbclid`, `_fbc`, and optionally `_fbp`. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `check_fbc_url` or say that this tool is for source text while the sibling is for URLs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear context for use by explaining the exact Meta reporting mistakes the checker catches and by stating that this is static source analysis, not execution. It does not explicitly name `check_fbc_url` or give an exclusion rule for when to choose the sibling instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_fbc_urlA
Fetch a landing page and run the same checks as check_fbc_code on its HTML plus every same-origin it loads, so tracking code kept in an external file is included. Cross-origin scripts (tag managers, the Meta Pixel, analytics SDKs) are never fetched and are listed under skipped_scripts. Limits: 30 s timeout per request, at most 20 scripts, 2 MB per file. Uses a mobile Safari user agent. Only public hosts are fetched: URLs that resolve to loopback, private, link-local or other internal addresses are refused, on every redirect hop too (start the server with FBC_GUARD_ALLOW_PRIVATE=1 to check local pages). Returns JSON with status ("pass", "fail", "unknown" or "not_applicable"), failed, unknown and warnings (rule IDs), and rules (one entry per rule with status "pass", "fail", "unknown" or "warn", evidence, what it protects against, severity, and a link to Meta's documentation). "unknown" means no rule failed but at least one could not decide, for example FBC-01 when it cannot tell which variable holds the fbclid from the URL. "not_applicable" means no _fbc appeared in the content, so nothing was judged. Neither is a pass. "warn" comes from a warning-level rule (FBC-06) and never changes the overall status. Also returns final_url (after redirects), scanned_scripts and skipped_scripts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | http or https URL of the landing page. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: 30 s timeout, 20-script cap, 2 MB per file, mobile Safari UA, SSRF guard behavior including redirect hops, and the FBC_GUARD_ALLOW_PRIVATE override. It also explains the meaning of every possible status value, including the subtle distinction that 'unknown' and 'not_applicable' are not passes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by fetch limits, security behavior, and return structure in a logical order. Every sentence carries information an agent needs given the lack of annotations and output schema, and nothing is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain behavior and returns itself, which it does in detail. It covers fetch scope, limits, security refusals, status semantics, and the full shape of the JSON response, leaving no material gap for correct invocation or interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as an http or https URL of the landing page. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
It names a specific verb (fetch a landing page) and a specific action (run the same checks as check_fbc_code) on HTML plus same-origin <script src> files. It also clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explaining that external tracking files are included, which the code snippet check cannot do.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear positive condition for use: checking a live landing page where tracking code may live in an external file. It also states exactly what is never fetched (cross-origin scripts) and where those appear in the result. It does not explicitly say when to prefer check_fbc_code instead, so a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
check_fbc_code - First observed
check_fbc_url
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are clearly separated by input mode: check_fbc_code analyzes supplied source text, while check_fbc_url fetches a live page and its same-origin scripts. Sharing the same rule set does not create ambiguity because the descriptions make the execution boundary explicit.
Both names follow the same predictable pattern: check_fbc_ followed by the input type (code or url). The snake_case convention is consistent across the entire server.
Two tools is below the typical 3–15 range, but the server has a narrow, single-purpose domain and each tool covers a genuinely distinct workflow. The surface is minimal without being redundant, though it is still on the thin side.
The server covers both obvious entry points for this domain: pasted source code and deployed URL scanning, including same-origin external scripts. It returns detailed per-rule results, evidence, warnings, and statuses for pass/fail/unknown/not_applicable, with no obvious core checker operation missing.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Audit a landing page's conversion (score, top issues, fixes) and check if AI crawlers can read it.
Audit a landing page before paid ads: readiness score, ad pixels found, conversion paths, top fixes.
Check public pages for SEO tags, AI crawler rules, AI citation signals and landing page conversion.
Audit and set up Meta Pixel and the Conversions API from your AI agent.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables rapid analysis of landing pages for SEO compliance, conversion structure, color contrast accessibility, and performance metrics with automated optimization suggestions and code snippets.5 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAudits public web pages for tracking tags, duplicate pixels, page weight, header hygiene, and lab performance from inside Claude Code or Claude Desktop.7MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceLets an MCP client check whether an ecommerce store can be read by AI assistants, auditing robots.txt to see which AI search versus training crawlers are blocked and sampling product pages to confirm structured data and facts survive in raw HTML without JavaScript. It can also generate a training-only opt-out robots.txt that leaves answer-engine crawlers allowed, all inside the conversation the user is already in.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceLets an AI assistant check any URL to see how much of a page's main content is present in the raw HTML versus only after JavaScript runs, showing which text blocks, meta fields, canonical tags, JSON-LD and links AI crawlers like GPTBot and ClaudeBot cannot read. It also reports what robots.txt allows for 22 AI bot tokens and how the site responds to each bot's user-agent.AGPL 3.0