scrapeunblocker-mcp-remote

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it uses a third-party API (ScrapeUnblocker), performs JavaScript rendering to get fully rendered HTML, and bypasses specific anti-bot protections. No contradictions with annotations, but could mention rate limits or error handling.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and output. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy. Extremely concise.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors. It references the external API docs for more detail. Missing details like authentication or error handling, but still largely complete for a standalone tool.

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. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., wait_method, proxy_country). The tool-level description of rendering and anti-bot bypass is helpful but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches the fully rendered HTML of any web page, bypassing anti-bot protections. It clearly distinguishes its purpose from siblings (e.g., fetch_parsed likely returns parsed data) and provides concrete usage scenarios (when normal fetch is blocked or page needs a real browser).

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 gives clear usage guidance: use when a normal fetch is blocked (403/429, captcha) or the page needs a real browser. It names specific anti-bot services bypassed, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like fetch_parsed, which would strengthen guidance further.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that it uses the ScrapeUnblocker API and returns AI-parsed JSON with examples, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or potential failure modes. With annotations covering safety profile, the description adds moderate context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence is concise, front-loaded with the core action and output format, and every part earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing safety context, the description adequately covers its purpose and output type with examples. It does not explain error handling or output shape detail, but this is acceptable for the complexity level.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema (url and proxy_country) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'fetch' and resource 'web page', specifies output as 'AI-parsed structured JSON' with examples (product details, article content, listings), and distinguishes from sibling 'fetch_html' which returns raw HTML.

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?

Description indicates when to use this tool (when you want structured data instead of raw HTML) but does not explicitly state when not to use or directly compare to alternatives like 'fetch_html' or 'google_search'. Context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to emphasize that it is a read operation. However, it adds value by specifying the external API and that results are limited to organic results in JSON format. It does not disclose potential rate limits, costs, or behavior when results are limited.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output format without extraneous words.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is minimally complete. It covers the core function but lacks detail on the JSON structure or any potential differences in returned data. It is adequate but not rich.

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%, meaning all parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline is 3.

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 clearly states that the tool runs a Google search via a specific API and returns organic results as JSON. It uses a precise verb ('Run a Google search') and identifies the resource and output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_html and fetch_parsed which retrieve web pages directly.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention criteria for choosing google_search over fetch_html or fetch_parsed, nor does it specify any prerequisites or limitations.

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