Skip to main content
Glama

audit_page

Read-only

Analyze HTML/CSS for design quality: checks typography, accessibility, responsive patterns, style guide compliance, and visual rhythm. Returns pass/fail per check with fix instructions.

Instructions

Audit HTML/CSS against Raven's design quality standards. Checks typography (min 13px, weight 400+, modular-scale heading ratios, line-height consistency), accessibility (WCAG touch targets, alt text, contrast), responsive patterns (flexbox over grid, clamp sizing, max-width containers), style guide compliance (CSS custom properties, no bare hex), and visual rhythm (4/8px spacing grid, tight spacing scale, palette size). Pass containerMaxWidth (your design system's canonical container token, in px) to make the max-width check token-aware — it then flags containers that diverge from your system (too narrow OR too wide) instead of a generic 1200px heuristic. Returns pass/fail per check with specific fix instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoIf set, Raven launches headless chromium, renders the page, and audits the RENDERED DOM.
htmlNoThe full HTML content of the page to audit
strictNoStrict mode — also flags warnings as failures. Default: false
compactNoReturn only the decision-grade signal — score, grade, summary, errors, warnings, fix_priority — and drop the embedded base64 screenshot and the passes list (replaced by passes_count). Default false. Use when the full payload would blow the tool-result budget.
viewportNo
interactionsNoBefore capturing, fire each interaction in order (hover/click/focus the selector, then wait delay_ms). Captures the resulting dynamic state — e.g. an on-hover theme-toggle wash invisible to a static screenshot.
scroll_settleNoBefore capturing, step through the page with short pauses so IntersectionObserver/whileInView reveals fire, then return to the top and settle. Also plays preload=none videos. Prevents blank-section false positives.
containerMaxWidthNoYour design system's canonical content-container width in px (e.g. 1152). When set, the responsive/max-width check flags divergence from this token instead of using the generic 1200px heuristic.
adversarial_verifyNoAfter generating findings, independently re-check each against the live DOM/network and tag it confirmed / likely-artifact / inconclusive. Surfaces a debunked_count.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral details: launches headless Chromium for URL, renders DOM, handles interactions, scroll settlement, and adversarial verification. No contradictions with annotations.

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 lengthier than minimal but front-loaded with core purpose and check list. It avoids redundancy with schema and effectively uses structure. Could trim some enumeration of checks for conciseness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers return format, parameter behaviors, and edge cases (e.g., blank-section false positives). It fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 89%, so most parameters already have schema descriptions. However, the description adds valuable context for key parameters: containerMaxWidth's token-aware behavior, interactions' dynamic state capture, scroll_settle's false positive prevention, and adversarial_verify's confirmation logic.

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 it audits HTML/CSS against Raven's design quality standards, listing specific checks. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by focusing on page-level design standards, but does not explicitly contrast with other audit tools.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'audit' or other audit_* siblings. The only usage hint is for the containerMaxWidth parameter. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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/rhinocap/raven-mcp'

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