crawl_statusRead a crawl started with crawl: its progress, and one page of the scraped results. When nextOffset is not null, pass it as offset to read the next page of results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results to return in this call (default 10). | |
| offset | No | Position of the first result to return. Defaults to 0. | |
| crawlId | Yes | The id returned by crawl. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / crawlId / formatAdded value: +"uuid"Input schema / properties / crawlId / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Results to return in this call (default 10).",
+ "maximum": 25,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Position of the first result to return. Defaults to 0.",
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds behavior annotations do not cover: that output is one page of results plus progress, and that pagination continues via nextOffset fed back as offset. This is useful return/pagination context absent from structured fields.
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?
Two sentences, no waste, and the core read/pagination intent is front-loaded before the continuation instruction.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by naming the return payload (progress, one page of results, nextOffset) and how to consume it. Complete enough to call correctly, with only minor detail about default limits left to the schema.
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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that offset should carry the nextOffset value from a prior response, and that this drives paged reading.
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 (Read) and resource (a crawl started with crawl) plus what is returned: progress and one page of results. It ties itself to the sibling crawl tool for provenance, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from batch_status.
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?
Gives clear context (use after starting a crawl with crawl) and an explicit continuation rule: when nextOffset is not null, pass it as offset. No exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance, but the usage condition is concrete.
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.