[Web Scraping] Crawl a website and extract its content as structured data.
Args: url: Website URL to crawl (e.g. 'https://example.com') max_pages: Max pages to crawl (default 5)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| max_pages | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which describe safety and volatility. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond parameter explanations, so it meets baseline adequacy without extra value.
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?
Description is concise with two sentences plus parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence contributes, though the structure could be more formalized.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description only vaguely mentions 'structured data' without specifying the return format. It also omits constraints like page limits, rate limits, or handling of dynamic content, leaving significant gaps for a scraping 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 has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description explains both parameters: url with an example and max_pages with its default. This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds meaningful semantic value.
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 'Crawl a website and extract its content as structured data', specifying verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'seo-web-analysis__crawl_website', which has a similar purpose.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies general web scraping but does not provide context for choosing it over siblings like 'web-scraping__google_search' or 'seo-web-analysis__crawl_website'.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.