Audit a public URL's metadata and security: title, meta description, Open Graph, JSON-LD, headings, image alt coverage, and headers, with a weighted score and letter grade.
Profile a web page: title/meta description, Open Graph tags, JSON-LD structured data, heading structure, image alt coverage and security headers, with a weighted score and letter grade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public URL to profile. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the response shape (a weighted score and letter grade), implying a read-only analyser, but says nothing about error behavior for unreachable/non-HTML URLs, redirect handling, timeouts, or rate limits, which are material for a network-fetching tool.
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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause names a real output dimension. It is appropriately sized, though the long comma-separated enumeration is slightly harder to scan than a short structured list.
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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned artifacts and the scoring model. Gaps remain around failure modes and scope limits (e.g., non-HTML or non-public URLs), but the core calling information is present.
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 100% and the single 'url' parameter is documented as 'Public URL to profile.' The description adds no extra meaning about URL format, scheme requirements, or what counts as 'public', so the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description names a specific verb ('Profile') and resource ('a web page') and enumerates the exact artifacts produced: title/meta, Open Graph, JSON-LD, headings, image alt coverage, security headers, plus a weighted score and letter grade. It clearly separates this from the narrow sibling check_security_headers by listing many more dimensions, but it never names or contrasts the siblings explicitly.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus check_security_headers, html_to_markdown, or compliance_scan, despite obvious overlap (security headers, page content extraction). Usage is only implied by the enumeration of outputs; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.