Skip to main content
Glama

validate_comprehensive

Run comprehensive website validation across performance, accessibility, SEO, and security categories using multiple testing services to assess website health.

Instructions

Run comprehensive validation across all categories (performance, accessibility, SEO, security).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
emailYesEmail for SSL Labs (required)
categoriesNoCategories to test (default: all)
pagespeedApiKeyNo
gtmetrixApiKeyNo
waveApiKeyNo
wcagLevelNo
waitForSSLNo

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that executes the validate_comprehensive tool by orchestrating sub-tests across categories.
    export async function runComprehensive(
      url: string,
      options: {
        performance?: PerformanceTestOptions;
        accessibility?: AccessibilityTestOptions;
        security: SecurityTestOptions;
        categories?: Array<'performance' | 'accessibility' | 'seo' | 'security'>;
      }
    ): Promise<ComprehensiveResult> {
      const categories = options.categories || ['performance', 'accessibility', 'seo', 'security'];
      const result: ComprehensiveResult = {
        url,
        timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),
        summary: {
          categories_tested: categories,
          overall_health: 'good',
          critical_issues: 0,
        },
      };
    
      // Run selected categories
      if (categories.includes('performance') && options.performance) {
        result.performance = await runAllPerformance(url, options.performance);
      }
    
      if (categories.includes('accessibility') && options.accessibility) {
        result.accessibility = await runAllAccessibility(url, options.accessibility);
        result.summary.critical_issues += result.accessibility.axe?.critical || 0;
      }
    
      if (categories.includes('seo')) {
        result.seo = await runAllSEO(url);
      }
    
      if (categories.includes('security')) {
        result.security = await runAllSecurity(url, options.security);
      }
    
      // Calculate overall health
      if (result.summary.critical_issues > 5) {
        result.summary.overall_health = 'poor';
      } else if (result.summary.critical_issues > 2) {
        result.summary.overall_health = 'fair';
      }
    
      return result;
    }
  • Zod schema used to validate input arguments for the validate_comprehensive tool.
    const ComprehensiveArgsSchema = z.object({
      url: z.string().url(),
      email: z.string().email(),
      categories: z.array(z.enum(['performance', 'accessibility', 'seo', 'security'])).optional(),
      pagespeedApiKey: z.string().optional(),
      gtmetrixApiKey: z.string().optional(),
      waveApiKey: z.string().optional(),
      wcagLevel: z.string().optional(),
      waitForSSL: z.boolean().optional(),
    });
  • index.ts:286-307 (registration)
    Tool registration definition including name, description, and input schema for MCP server.
    {
      name: 'validate_comprehensive',
      description: 'Run comprehensive validation across all categories (performance, accessibility, SEO, security).',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          url: { type: 'string' },
          email: { type: 'string', description: 'Email for SSL Labs (required)' },
          categories: {
            type: 'array',
            items: { type: 'string', enum: ['performance', 'accessibility', 'seo', 'security'] },
            description: 'Categories to test (default: all)'
          },
          pagespeedApiKey: { type: 'string' },
          gtmetrixApiKey: { type: 'string' },
          waveApiKey: { type: 'string' },
          wcagLevel: { type: 'string' },
          waitForSSL: { type: 'boolean' },
        },
        required: ['url', 'email'],
      },
    },
  • Dispatch handler in main tool switch that validates args and invokes runComprehensive.
    case 'validate_comprehensive': {
      const validatedArgs = ComprehensiveArgsSchema.parse(args);
      const result = await runComprehensive(validatedArgs.url, {
        performance: {
          pagespeed: { apiKey: validatedArgs.pagespeedApiKey },
          gtmetrix: validatedArgs.gtmetrixApiKey ? { apiKey: validatedArgs.gtmetrixApiKey } : undefined,
        },
        accessibility: {
          wave: validatedArgs.waveApiKey ? { apiKey: validatedArgs.waveApiKey } : undefined,
          axe: { wcagLevel: validatedArgs.wcagLevel },
        },
        security: {
          sslLabs: {
            email: validatedArgs.email,
            waitForComplete: validatedArgs.waitForSSL,
          },
        },
        categories: validatedArgs.categories,
      });
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }] };
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the output structure of the comprehensive validation result.
    export interface ComprehensiveResult {
      url: string;
      timestamp: string;
      performance?: AllPerformanceResult;
      accessibility?: AllAccessibilityResult;
      seo?: AllSEOResult;
      security?: AllSecurityResult;
      summary: {
        categories_tested: string[];
        overall_health: 'excellent' | 'good' | 'fair' | 'poor';
        critical_issues: number;
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs validation but doesn't mention critical behaviors like execution time, rate limits, authentication needs (implied by API keys in schema but not described), or what 'comprehensive' entails operationally. This is a significant gap for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by conveying the tool's scope and action, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter usage, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool effectively beyond a basic understanding of its scope.

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 low at 25%, with only 2 of 8 parameters having descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'categories' implicitly but not explaining parameter interactions (e.g., how API keys relate to categories, what 'waitForSSL' does). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving most parameters poorly documented.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run comprehensive validation across all categories (performance, accessibility, SEO, security).' It specifies the verb ('Run comprehensive validation') and scope ('across all categories'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the many sibling validation tools listed, which focus on specific categories or methods.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling alternatives (e.g., validate_accessibility_axe, validate_performance_gtmetrix). It mentions 'all categories' but doesn't specify scenarios where this comprehensive approach is preferred over targeted validations, leaving the agent without usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cordlesssteve/webby-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server