Validate structured data on any webpage URL to detect markup errors and ensure rich results eligibility. Works with JSON-LD, Microdata, and RDFa.
Validate structured data (JSON-LD, Microdata, RDFa) for a given webpage URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The webpage URL to validate structured markup for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Input schema / properties / dataRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The URL, HTML content, or JSON string to validate",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / typeRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The type of input provided",
- "enum": [
- "url",
- "html",
- "json"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The webpage URL to validate structured markup for",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "type",
- "data"
-]New value: +[
+ "url"
+]v1.14.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description itself must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure; it mentions supported formats but does not describe the output/return value, side effects, or any prerequisites. For example, it should state that validation is read-only and returns a validation report or errors.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and lists the key input formats, containing no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
While the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description clearly states the action and input formats, but it omits what the validation returns (e.g., a report, errors, pass/fail), which is a meaningful gap given the absence of an output schema. The description is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The schema already documents the sole 'url' parameter with a clear description; the tool description adds context about supported formats but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3 as the description does not contradict or enhance parameter understanding.
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 uses the specific verb 'Validate' with a resource 'structured data' and lists supported formats (JSON-LD, Microdata, RDFa) for a given URL, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like inspection_inspect or pagespeed_analyze which address different concerns. It precisely states what the tool does.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool vs alternatives; the intended usage is implied by the name and description but not stated as a recommendation or exclusion. It does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.