Follow a URL through its full redirect chain to record status codes, timing, and TLS status per hop, then return an A-F health grade and flag protocol downgrades.
Follow a URL through its full redirect chain recording status codes, timing, TLS status per hop. Returns a redirect health grade A-F and detects protocol downgrades.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| max_hops | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the recorded artifacts per hop and the returned grade/downgrade detection, which is genuine behavioral value. However it says nothing about whether the trace is read-only, any rate limits, hop limits, or how failures/timeouts are surfaced.
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 dense sentences with zero filler, and the core action and its outputs are front-loaded. Slightly more could have been said about parameters within the same footprint, but nothing is wasted.
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?
No annotations and no output schema mean the description must stand alone, and it only partly does: it describes returned values but omits max_hops semantics, defaults, and edge-case behavior. Adequate for a quick call, incomplete for an agent that needs to reason about hop limits or failure modes.
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 0% for both parameters. The description mentions following a URL, which weakly implies the url parameter, but adds nothing about max_hops — its default, ceiling, or behavior when exceeded. It does not compensate for the documentation 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?
States a specific verb and resource (follow a URL through its redirect chain) plus the outputs produced (status codes, timing, TLS status, A-F grade, downgrade detection). This is clearly distinct from siblings like netintel_url_safety or netintel_web_fetch, though the description never names an alternative to reinforce the distinction.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of sibling tools such as netintel_url_safety or netintel_ssl_analyze that an agent might confuse this with. The agent must infer the trigger scenario entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.