Black Label Continuum Website MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the output format options (Markdown vs stripped text) and the 40,000-character cap, which are not visible in annotations. That is meaningful added context beyond the structured data.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Read one page'), includes the domain, format, and character limit. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key facts: target domain, output format, and size limit. It doesn't explain what happens when the page exceeds 40,000 characters (truncation? error?), which is a minor gap, but overall an agent has what it needs to invoke this tool correctly.

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 has 1 parameter (url) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While the description doesn't re-explain 'url', it adds domain context ('https://continuum.blacklabelbots.com') and the character limit, which clarifies what URLs are valid and what output size to expect. With only one self-evident parameter, the description's contribution is sufficient.

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 specifies the verb 'Read', the resource (one https://continuum.blacklabelbots.com page), the format (Markdown or stripped text), and the length limit (up to 40,000 characters). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_pages and site_info without needing to open those tools.

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?

The description implies this tool is for retrieving a single page's content, which contrasts with search_pages (searching) and site_info (site-level info). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the domain restriction (continuum.blacklabelbots.com) and the contrast with siblings make the usage context clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it performs a sitemap search and returns match scores, which is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose deeper behavioral aspects like data freshness or whether the search hits a live site.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core operation first and the return value second, making it both concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and output adequately for a simple search tool, but it lacks explicit guidance on query construction, the effect of the limit parameter, and the interpretation of match scores. Since there is no output schema, these details would improve agent success, but the core call is still understandable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It implies 'query' should contain words to match against the URL path, but it never explicitly mentions the 'limit' parameter, its default, or how the match score works. This partial hint is not sufficient compensation for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('pages on continuum.blacklabelbots.com'), and the matching method ('words in their URL path'). It also defines the output ('Returns URLs with a match score'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and implicitly distinct from siblings read_page and site_info.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this tool to locate pages by URL path words rather than to read page content or get site metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use criteria, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful context about the content (links to sitemap, docs, contact, discovery documents) without contradicting annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and then lists included resources. No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully conveys what the agent can expect: site information with links. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Baseline of 4 applies, and no parameter explanation is needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'what Black Label Continuum is' with links to specific resources. Clearly distinguishes from sibling read_page (reads a specific page) and search_pages (searches).

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?

The description implies use when you need an overview of the site, its sitemap, docs, contact, and discovery documents. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is clear and no exclusions are given.

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