codecheck

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Test Interactions

test_interactions

Detect dead buttons, disabled elements that still respond, overlapping controls, broken forms, and invalid anchors to pinpoint interaction failures in web projects.

Instructions

Кнопки и ссылки: мёртвые кнопки, отключённые, что всё равно реагируют, перекрытые, формы, битые якоря.

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": "test_interactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	Yes
`max_pages`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what is checked but not how the tool behaves—whether it clicks, submits forms, navigates pages, or produces side effects. No limits or safety characteristics are disclosed.

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 a single compact sentence that packs many concrete test categories without filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of needed behavioral and parameter context.

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?

The output schema may cover return values, but the input contract is opaque and annotations are absent. For a tool that likely drives browser interactions, the description omits target semantics, pagination behavior, and operational side effects, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions target or max_pages. An agent cannot infer whether target is a URL, selector, or element ID, nor how max_pages affects crawling. Neither the schema nor the description compensates for this gap.

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 enumerates concrete interaction targets—buttons, links, forms, and broken anchors—and specific failure modes like dead, disabled-but-reactive, and overlapped elements. This distinguishes it from the layout/font/image sibling tools by domain, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to choose test_interactions versus full_qa or quick_security. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context signals indicating when this tool is the right fit, so an agent must infer usage entirely.

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

Deploy Server