Website Intelligence MCP

analyze_social

Extract Open Graph and Twitter Card metadata from a URL to check social share previews and diagnose missing or incorrect tags.

Instructions

Analyze Open Graph and Twitter Card metadata

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": "analyze_social"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only what is analyzed, not how the analysis behaves (e.g., whether it fetches the URL, what it returns, or any error conditions). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of seven words with no filler. Every word earns its place by naming the verb and the metadata types.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete for an agent to use confidently. It omits when to choose this tool over sibling analyzers and provides no behavioral or parameter context to compensate for the sparse structured metadata.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema defines a single required 'url' parameter with URI format but no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any meaning about what URL should be supplied, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage, though the parameter name itself is somewhat self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('Open Graph and Twitter Card metadata'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling 'analyze_open_graph' or explain the added scope of social metadata beyond Open Graph.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_open_graph' or 'analyze_meta'. The context is only implied by the tool name and description, leaving the agent to infer usage from siblings.

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