Trace a URL's redirect chain to reveal each hop's HTTP status code, final destination, and total redirect count. Identify redirect loops or unexpected paths.
Follow a URL's redirect chain. Shows every hop with HTTP status code, final destination URL, and total number of redirects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to trace (e.g., "http://github.com") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying the output format (hops with status codes, final URL, total count), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but the core behavior is well disclosed.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and output details are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable for an agent.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The output details are explicit, and the annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'url' has a description with an example. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?
Description clearly states the action (follow/trace) and resource (redirect chain), and specifies what it shows (every hop, status code, final URL, total redirects). This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_url or check_link which focus on validation or link health rather than tracing the chain.
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?
The description implies usage for tracing redirects but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like validate_url or check_link. There is no exclusion guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.