Cromanion

cromanion_crawl

Re-read the site, and name the pages that matter most so they are read first. You know this site's structure better than its owner does — seeding it is the cheapest real improvement to what the agent understands. Rate-limited: one crawl per 30 minutes. Needs the site-config permission.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteId`	No	Which site this call is about. Only needed when your credential covers more than one — cromanion_grants lists them and says whether it is required. Omitting it with several is refused rather than guessed at.
`priorityUrls`	No	Up to 10 paths or URLs to read first, e.g. ["/pricing", "/checkout"]. Anything unusable is handed back rather than dropped.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`ignored`	Yes	What we could not use, handed back rather than dropped — you sent ten and kept eight, these are the two.
`advanceUrl`	No	POST this between status polls to advance the crawl yourself, instead of waiting for the cron.
`priorityUrls`	Yes	The paths we accepted and will read first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / siteId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which site this call is about. Only needed when your credential covers more than one — cromanion_grants lists them and says whether it is required. Omitting it with several is refused rather than guessed at.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "advanceUrl": {
+      "description": "POST this between status polls to advance the crawl yourself, instead of waiting for the cron.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ignored": {
+      "description": "What we could not use, handed back rather than dropped — you sent ten and kept eight, these are the two.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "priorityUrls": {
+      "description": "The paths we accepted and will read first.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "priorityUrls",
+    "ignored"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses two non-obvious operational constraints not visible in structured data: 'one crawl per 30 minutes' rate limiting and the 'site-config permission' requirement. It also frames the call's effect as improving the agent's site understanding. No contradiction with annotations — a crawl with side effects is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and closing with hard constraints (rate limit, permission). The second sentence's motivational aside, 'You know this site's structure better than its owner does,' is mild fluff, though the 'cheapest real improvement' clause does add a usage signal. Slightly compressible but well under the size limit and mostly earning 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 2-parameter, fully-schema-documented tool with an output schema and four annotations, the description covers the operational essentials an agent needs to invoke it correctly: purpose, rate limiting, and required permission. Output schema handles return values, annotations handle IDempotency/destructiveness. The remaining gap is strategic (when to crawl) rather than mechanical, so nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions are exceptional: siteId explains when it's required, points to cromanion_grants, and states the refusal-on-omission behavior; priorityUrls documents the 10-item limit, path/URL format with examples, and the 'handed back rather than dropped' error handling. The main description only loosely gestures at priorityUrls ('name the pages that matter most'), so the schema carries the burden — the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Re-read the site' (crawl the site) with a clear behavioral add-on, 'name the pages that matter most so they are read first' (priority seeding). The title annotation reinforces this. Among 24 siblings, none is an obvious crawl alternative, so no explicit differentiation is needed, though the verb 're-read' is slightly indirect for 'crawl'.

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 context is implied: 'seeding it is the cheapest real improvement to what the agent understands' suggests this is the go-to refresh mechanism, and the rate limit warns against frequent calls. However, the description never states when to use it (initial setup, after site changes, periodically), names no alternative tools, and gives no when-not-to-use guidance. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

All Cromanion tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource or action—state reads (config, pending, grants, site_status), mutations (set_*, add_goal, decide), and lifecycle steps (open_claim, verify_claim, claim_domain) are clearly separated by detailed descriptions. Even similar-sounding tools like install_check vs site_status are explicitly differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the cromanion_ prefix and snake_case, but the action-object pattern is inconsistent: many are verb_noun (set_mode, verify_claim), while others are bare nouns or verbs (config, pending, crawl, decide, surfaces). This mixed convention is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is at the high end; the server covers a broad domain and each tool has a distinct job, but the set feels heavy with many narrow configuration endpoints (set_brand, set_voice, surfaces, exclusions). It is not bloated enough to be chaotic, but it is borderline.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle from claim/verify/install through goal definition, rules, decisions, measurement, and lead delivery. Minor gaps exist—no account/site deletion, no broader integration management—but agents can accomplish core workflows without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?