Skip to main content
Glama

check_budgets

Run fresh audits to verify your site meets performance budgets defined in .uimaxrc.json, comparing Lighthouse scores, Web Vitals, accessibility, and code issues against thresholds.

Instructions

Check if the current site meets performance budgets defined in .uimaxrc.json. Runs fresh audits and compares results against budget thresholds for Lighthouse scores, Web Vitals, accessibility violations, and code issues. Returns pass/fail with details of any exceeded budgets.

Configure budgets in .uimaxrc.json under the "budgets" key: { "budgets": { "lighthouse": { "performance": 90, "accessibility": 95 }, "webVitals": { "lcp": 2500, "cls": 0.1 }, "maxAccessibilityViolations": 0 } }

This tool is FREE — runs entirely within Claude Code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL of the running application (e.g., http://localhost:3000)
codeDirNoProject directory containing .uimaxrc.json with budget config (defaults to cwd)
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions running fresh audits and being free/in-Claude, but lacks detail on side effects, caching, or destructive actions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then details, example JSON, and a free note. Each part is necessary and front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Gives clear output format and configuration details. Lacks mention of output schema but compensated by describing return value. Complete enough for a straightforward budget check.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers both params with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining the budget config structure and the role of codeDir.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks budgets against .uimaxrc.json config, runs audits, and returns pass/fail. Distinct from sibling audit tools that produce raw scores.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Description implies usage when budget config exists and pass/fail check is needed, contrasting with standalone audits. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/prembobby39-gif/uimax-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server