Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Web Crawler MCP by InsightfulPipe

by com.insightfulpipe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Crawler Execute Action

execute_action
Destructive

Execute crawler action (Step 4 (FINAL) of workflow).

REQUIRED: Complete these steps first using query_contexts:

  1. request='accounts' - Get workspace_id and connected domains

  2. request='available_actions' - Get list of all available crawler actions

  3. request='actions_details' with actions=['xxxx'] - Get detailed body structure for specific action(s)

IMPORTANT: Always call step 3 to see the exact body structure before executing.

Rely on info from steps 1-3 to construct the action body. Follow the schema exactly. Automatically attaches platform='crawler' and handles JSON/text/XML responses.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "execute_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
timeout_secondsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only, open-world, and destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context—platform auto-attachment and handling JSON/text/XML responses—but does not explain what is destroyed, what permissions are required, or what failure modes look like, which matters for a destructive tool.

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?

The workflow position is front-loaded ('Step 4 (FINAL)'), followed by a numbered prerequisite list and a clear warning before execution. It is somewhat verbose but every block carries actionable information for constructing the call.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a complex, destructive, open-world tool with a free-form nested body, the description covers prerequisites, body construction, platform attachment, and response handling. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'timeout_seconds' parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does so by directing the agent to derive the free-form 'body' structure from query_contexts step 3 and to follow the schema exactly, and it notes automatic platform attachment. However, 'timeout_seconds' is never mentioned, leaving one of the two parameters undocumented.

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 verb and resource ('Execute crawler action') and positions the tool as Step 4 (FINAL) of a workflow, which distinguishes it from sibling query tools. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it replaces or contrasts with, but the workflow framing is clear.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit required prerequisites via query_contexts with request values ('accounts', 'available_actions', 'actions_details') and emphasizes always calling step 3 before executing. It does not state when *not* to use the tool or name alternative siblings, but the sequencing guidance is strong.

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

All Web Crawler MCP by InsightfulPipe toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources