fairquery-web

Official

by fairquery

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Quick URL check: status, redirects, title, speed (free)

web_quick_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether up to 20 URLs are reachable and where they redirect: returns final HTTP status, redirect chain, response time, content type, server, and page title for quick lead pre-filtering.

Instructions

Lightweight reachability check for 1-20 URLs: final HTTP status, full redirect chain, response time (ms), content type, Server header and . WHEN TO USE: "is this site up?", "where does this domain redirect?", cheap pre-filtering of a lead list before deeper audits. For SEO details use web_seo_audit; for hundreds/thousands of sites use web_batch_audit. Fetching: read-only GETs from this server with User-Agent "FairqueryBot ... Fairquery-MCP", 15 s timeout per request, body capped (1.5 MB HTML), max 5 redirects; URLs resolving to private/loopback/link-local addresses are refused (SSRF guard). Free, no token, no JavaScript rendering. Only the first 300 KB of each page is read. URLs are checked in parallel. RETURNS: {count, items}: one "quick_check" row per input (input, requested_url, final_url, status_code, ok, https, redirect_count, redirects[{url,status}], response_ms, content_type, server, title, checked_at) or an "error" row (input, code, message, retryable) with codes INVALID_URL, BLOCKED_PRIVATE_ADDRESS, DNS_FAILED, FETCH_FAILED, TIMEOUT, TOO_MANY_REDIRECTS. Per-URL errors never fail the whole call. WHEN NOT TO USE: not for SEO/meta analysis (web_seo_audit), security headers (web_security_headers) or >20 URLs (web_batch_audit, paid). COST: free - runs locally in this MCP server (direct HTTP GETs), no APIFY_TOKEN, no Apify billing. EXAMPLE: {"urls":["vercel.com"]} -> {count:1, items:[{type:"quick_check", final_url:"https://vercel.com/", status_code:200, ok:true, ...}]}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes	Required. 1-20 public domains or http(s) URLs (bare domains use https), e.g. ["vercel.com","http://github.com"]

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes	Number of rows returned
`items`	Yes	Result rows; each has a "type" field (data rows or machine-readable "error" rows)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.1Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, no destruction), but the description adds substantial operational detail annotations cannot: User-Agent string, 15s timeout, 1.5MB body cap, 300KB read limit, max 5 redirects, SSRF guard refusing private/loopback addresses, parallel execution, and free/no-token/no-JS. This is exactly what behavioral disclosure should add beyond structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then cleanly sectioned into WHEN TO USE / Fetching / RETURNS / WHEN NOT TO USE / COST. Every block earns its place, though the RETURNS field-by-field enumeration is slightly redundant given the output schema exists.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, yet it does so concisely while also covering the SSRF constraint, per-URL error isolation ('never fail the whole call'), and cost model. 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.

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `urls` param is well-documented in the schema itself. The description restates the 1-20 range and bare-domain-uses-https rule, but adds no syntax beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lightweight reachability check for 1-20 URLs') and enumerates the exact returned fields, distinguishing it from SEO/security siblings by function. An agent can tell it apart from web_seo_audit and web_security_headers without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit WHEN TO USE with example queries ('is this site up?'), named alternatives (web_seo_audit for SEO details, web_batch_audit for >20 URLs), and a WHEN NOT TO USE section listing three siblings and their scopes. Fully routes the agent.

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

Deploy Server