discover_pagesList the pages of Site A (sitemap, robots.txt, or crawl), mapped onto Site B when given. Paid in USDC (the 402 challenge names the network): 0.05 USD per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxPages | No | Stop after this many pages. | |
| sourceUrl | Yes | Site A (full URL). | |
| targetUrl | No | Site B; pages are mapped onto it when given. | |
| sitemapUrl | No | Sitemap to read instead of the fallbacks. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / maxPages / maximumPrevious value: -500New value: +9007199254740991Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the payment requirement (0.05 USD per call) and the method (sitemap, robots.txt, or crawl). However, it does not mention side effects, return format, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the payment note is appended without unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes value.
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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the purpose, method, and cost, but does not specify the return format or error behavior. While the schema covers parameters, the description lacks some details that would make it fully complete for an agent.
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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The description adds context about mapping Site A to Site B but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 applies.
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 action ('List the pages of Site A') with a clear resource and optional mapping to Site B. It distinguishes itself from siblings like start_comparison and capture_screenshot, which handle different tasks, so an agent can easily tell it apart.
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 for when to use the tool: to discover pages from a site, optionally mapping to another. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.
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.