explain_crawdarGet result semantics, limits, interface URLs, and safe operating guidance. This tool does not consume a search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guidance | Yes | ||
| interfaces | Yes | ||
| resultLanes | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a behavioral note about not consuming a search. Together, these provide complete transparency about side effects and input handling.
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 two sentences, each conveying essential information without fluff. It is well-structured and directly states the tool's purpose and a key constraint.
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 specifies the types of information provided (result semantics, limits, interface URLs, safe operating guidance), which gives a complete picture of what the tool returns. Combined with the annotations, the tool's context is fully covered.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is complete. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on any parameter semantics since there are none.
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 the tool provides result semantics, limits, interface URLs, and safe operating guidance, which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling search tools. It is concise and unambiguous.
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 explicitly notes that the tool does not consume a search, which clarifies it is not for search operations and guides when to use it (for explanations) versus the search-focused siblings. This is a clear usage hint.
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 map to distinct lifecycle actions (start/get/cancel/refine/retry), and the descriptions make those boundaries clear. The only real overlap is between research_businesses and search_businesses, which both perform synchronous lookups but are separated by natural-language vs structured input.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, with lead_search reused across lifecycle operations. Even explain_crawdar and sandbox_businesses fit the naming convention well.
Nine tools is well within the appropriate range for a business-research MCP server. The count balances synchronous search, a durable async job lifecycle, sandbox testing, and self-documentation without feeling bloated.
The async lead-search lifecycle is well covered with start, get, cancel, refine, and retry, and the synchronous and sandbox search tools cover adjacent needs. However, export is mentioned in start_lead_search but not exposed as a tool, and there is no way to list existing jobs, leaving minor gaps.