Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-page-monitor

mcp-page-monitor

by deialedin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

analyze_change

Send a page diff to an LLM to get a business impact analysis with severity, change type, key changes, and recommended actions.

Instructions

Send a page diff to an LLM and get a business impact analysis including severity, change type, key changes, and recommended actions.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL whose changes to analyze
diff_textNoOptional: provide diff text directly instead of computing from latest snapshots

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sends data to an LLM and returns specific fields, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, its side effects, or any rate/authorization requirements.

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 one sentence, clear, and front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word earns its place without repetition or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, but the description compensates by enumerating the expected analysis fields. The input schema is fully described, and the description clarifies the purpose. Missing elements like explicit side-effect disclosure are minor given the tool's analytical nature.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for the two parameters (url, diff_text). The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action ('send to an LLM') and the resource ('page diff') with a specific output ('business impact analysis'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_changes by emphasizing LLM-based impact analysis rather than simple diff detection.

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?

The description implies clear usage context: use when you need business impact analysis of a page diff. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the distinct function (analysis vs. monitoring/checking) provides sufficient 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