ReviewWebsite MCP Server

url_get_after_redirects

Resolves a URL through all redirects and returns the final destination URL.

Instructions

Get URL after redirects using ReviewWeb.site API.

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": "url_get_after_redirects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	URL to get after redirects
`api_key`	No	Your ReviewWebsite API key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the basic action of getting the URL after redirects but does not explain error handling (e.g., timeouts, 404s), whether it follows all redirect types, or the format of the response. This gap impairs the agent's ability to anticipate outcomes.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or emphasis, and the brevity may omit necessary details. It earns points for no wasted words but loses for potential under-specification.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., the final URL string, a status code, or an error message). It does not, nor does it clarify the role of the optional api_key parameter. For a simple tool with two parameters, this is insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema are clear ('URL to get after redirects', 'Your ReviewWebsite API key'), achieving 100% schema coverage. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'URL after redirects', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scrape_url and url_is_alive by its specific focus on resolving redirects, though it does not explicitly name them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'url_is_alive' or 'scrape_url'. There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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

Deploy Server