io.github.tidybytetools/link-check-lite

check_links

Verify up to 200 HTTP(S) links at once, follow redirect chains, and return status codes, final URLs, and connection errors for each URL.

Instructions

Check web links and follow their redirects.

urls: up to 200 http(s) links.
timeout: seconds to wait for each link.

Returns one result per link: {url, status, ok, final_url, redirects, error}.
status is the HTTP code of the last hop (null if it could not connect).
ok is true for 200-399. redirects lists each hop as "CODE url".

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes
`timeout`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the 200-link cap, that the timeout applies per link, that redirect hops are followed and listed, and that a failed connection yields status null. It omits HTTP method used, any maximum redirect depth, and whether authentication/cookies are sent or bodies downloaded.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then parameter notes, then return shape - tight and scannable with no filler. The return-value block partly restates the output schema, but the status/ok/redirects semantics justify its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, capacity, timeout semantics, and result interpretation. Remaining gaps (request method, redirect limit, network egress behavior) are minor for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does define both parameters: urls as up to 200 http(s) links and timeout as seconds waited per link. That is enough meaning to invoke correctly, though it does not clarify whether timeout is per redirect hop or per whole chain.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check web links and follow their redirects.' It immediately tells an agent both the operation and the redirect-following behavior, which is the key distinguishing trait of this tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the purpose and a capacity limit is stated ('up to 200 http(s) links'), but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no exclusions (e.g., non-HTTP schemes, internal hosts), and no alternatives named - though no siblings exist to route against.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

check_linksA