Internal-link analyzer for one page: internal vs external counts, nofollow/sponsored/ugc usage, empty and generic anchors, target=_blank without noopener, most-repeated links, and top internal anchor texts. ?url= ($0.001 per call, paid via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public URL of the page to analyze |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rel | No | ||
| external | No | ||
| internal | No | ||
| total_links | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds pricing ($0.001 per call) beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
A single sentence with a bulleted list of capabilities and cost info. Every part is valuable with no fluff.
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?
Given the simple input (one parameter), annotations, and output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and cost completely.
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?
With only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Public URL of the page to analyze'.
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 clearly states 'Internal-link analyzer for one page' and enumerates specific link metrics (internal/external counts, nofollow/sponsored/ugc usage, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_seo_full_audit which are site-wide.
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?
It specifies 'for one page' and lists the exact analyses performed, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.
Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.
With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.
The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).
