Analyze supplied HTML source to count structural elements, list resource references, detect duplicate IDs, and find broken anchors without executing the code.
Inspect supplied HTML source for structural counts, resource references, duplicate IDs and broken anchors; never execute it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'never execute it' (largely redundant) but usefully discloses the inspection outputs (counts, references, duplicate IDs, anchors). It says nothing about output format or limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that lists what is inspected and closes with the key operational constraint. No filler; every clause adds signal.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys what the input is and what categories of finding to expect. It is nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior (e.g., malformed HTML handling) and output shape hints.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'html' parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It identifies the input as 'HTML source' but gives no format, encoding, or size guidance beyond the schema's maxLength of 120000. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.
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?
Names a specific verb (inspect) and resource (HTML source), and enumerates concrete checks: structural counts, resource references, duplicate IDs, broken anchors. This distinguishes it from rendering/templating siblings, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool. The 'never execute it' clause sharpens the static-analysis scope.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool is for static inspection of HTML you supply, contrasted against execution. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to complementary checks like check_accessibility_markup or verify_template_source, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.