Skip to main content
Glama
adsandcode

mcp-server-serp-title-width

by adsandcode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

measure_titles

Measure page titles by rendered pixel width for Google search results, flagging truncation, edge cuts, boilerplate tails, and title-link issues before publication.

Instructions

Measure page titles by rendered pixel width in Google search results, not by character count, and check them for truncation and title-link problems. Pass every title of a site in one call so boilerplate tails shared across titles are detected. Returns per title: px, full_width_units (px / 22), tier (safe/long/edge/cut), fails, warns; plus boilerplate_tails for the whole set and verdict 'fix' if any title fails. Model: Google search results on google.com with the zh-TW (Traditional Chinese, Taiwan) interface, Chrome on Windows, title font Arial 22px, desktop result column 652px, mobile first line 343px, measured 2026-09-18. Full-width characters (East Asian Width W or F: CJK ideographs, kana, Hangul, full-width punctuation, most emoji) count 22px; printable ASCII uses Arial's own advance widths at 22px; other half-width characters count 12.2px; zero-width characters count 0 and each grapheme cluster (such as an emoji ZWJ sequence) counts once. Kerning is not modelled. Tiers: safe <= 572px, long > 572px (warning), edge > 630px (must fix), cut > 648px (must fix). Japanese and Korean use the same full-width assumption but were not separately measured. Google may rewrite title links, so a passing title is not a guarantee of what is displayed. Fails: tier edge or cut; more than 2 separators (、 or ，) in a title over 572px; more than 1 full-width question mark (？); a trailing phrase after the last 、 or ， shared by more than 2 titles in the same call (boilerplate; a site name after a colon is not counted, as Google suggests that pattern); empty title; the same 2-4 ideograph run 3 or more times (keyword stuffing). Warnings: tier long; more than 2 separators in a title within 572px; text before the first ？：、，wider than the 343px mobile first line.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titlesYesTitle strings exactly as they appear in <title>, already decoded ("&" not "&amp;").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the measurement model, pixel assumptions, tier thresholds, failure and warning conditions, and important caveats such as unmodeled kerning and Google's possible title rewriting. This is unusually complete for an unannotated 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?

The description is long and dense, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into outputs, model assumptions, tiers, fails, and warnings. Most sentences provide substantive rules or caveats rather than filler, though the length may challenge quick scanning.

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?

Given a single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, expected input batching, returned fields, measurement assumptions, thresholds, and detailed fail/warn criteria. It is complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single titles parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful batch semantics by requiring all titles of a site in one call for boilerplate detection, which is valuable context beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: measuring page titles by rendered pixel width and checking truncation and title-link problems. It is very clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly compare itself to the sibling check_title_files tool.

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?

It gives a clear usage instruction to pass every title of a site in one call so that shared boilerplate tails can be detected. It does not state when not to use the tool or explicitly name check_title_files as an alternative, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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