Skip to main content
Glama

Get a site crawl

get_crawl
Read-onlyIdempotent

One site crawl: where it is, each of its pages with its status and image counts, the totals saved, and, once every page has finished, the site's report in audit: how many image addresses the pages had, how many are worth fixing, and how many have each finding (oversized, without width and height or alt text, lazy loading in the wrong place, the largest contentful paint unprioritized), an image the pages share counted once. Poll this, a few seconds apart, while a crawl runs: it is done once its status is completed or failed and pages_in_progress and images_in_progress are 0. Each page is a page scan: call get_scan with its id (and audit_images true) for what to fix on that page, list_images with scan set to its id for its images, and create_zip with crawl_id to download every page's images at once, a folder per page.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe crawl's id, as crawl_site returned it.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe crawl's id.
urlNoThe sitemap read, or the first page listed.
hintNoWhat to do next: poll again while pages or images are at work, then where each page's images and report are.
noteNoWhy the crawl failed.
auditNoThe site's report, an image the pages share counted once. Null until the crawl is done.
pagesNoEach page, in the order the crawl took them.
sourceNo
statusNocompleted once every page and its images have finished. failed: the crawl could not start its pages; note says why.
settingsNo
created_atNo
monitor_idNoThe weekly site check this crawl is a run of, or null.
updated_atNo
pages_countNo
saved_bytesNo
images_countNo
pages_failedNo
original_sizeNoBytes, over the finished images.
saved_percentNo
optimized_sizeNoBytes, over the finished images.
pages_left_outNoPages past the plan's pages per crawl, not scanned.
images_finishedNo
pages_in_progressNo
images_in_progressNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the poll-until-terminal pattern, the exact completion predicate, and the deduplication rule ('an image the pages share counted once') that affects how the audit totals should be interpreted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the bulk of the description is one long run-on stream that re-enumerates the audit findings and per-page fields already covered by the output schema. The routing guidance earns its place; the field-by-field return recap does not, making it denser than necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still supplies the two things an agent cannot infer from structured fields: the polling cadence and the exact condition under which the crawl is finished. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as 'the crawl's id, as crawl_site returned it.' The description adds meaning by mapping the related ids across tools (per-page scan ids for get_scan/list_images, crawl_id for create_zip), though it does not add syntax or format detail for the id itself.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific resource ('One site crawl') and enumerates exactly what it returns: location, per-page status and image counts, totals, and audit report. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from crawl_site (the creator) and get_scan (the per-page view) by scoping itself to a single existing crawl.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit polling protocol ('Poll this, a few seconds apart, while a crawl runs') and a precise termination condition (status completed/failed and pages_in_progress and images_in_progress both 0). It also names the correct siblings for narrower needs: get_scan with audit_images for per-page fixes, list_images with scan for per-page images, create_zip with crawl_id for bulk download.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources