scan_website_quickCrawl a website's structure (sitemap, top pages) BEFORE creating an agent. Useful when deciding which company to set on the agent. Costs ~2 credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| website_url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cost ('Costs ~2 credits') and the general action (crawl), but lacks information about side effects, idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a 1-parameter tool with no annotation support.
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 deliver purpose, timing, and cost with zero wasted words. The key scoping information ('BEFORE creating an agent') is front-loaded, making it instantly actionable.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, usage timing, and cost, which is adequate for a simple 1-parameter tool. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the result format beyond hinting at 'sitemap, top pages'. This leaves the agent guessing about how to use the returned data.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for lack of parameter guidance. However, it does not mention the 'website_url' parameter at all, its expected format, or any constraints. While the parameter name is intuitive, the description adds no value beyond the schema's minimal property listing.
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 states a specific verb ('Crawl') and resource ('a website's structure') and clarifies the purpose ('BEFORE creating an agent', 'when deciding which company to set'). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deep_scan_agent', so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use the tool: before agent creation, specifically for company selection. It also mentions cost as a consideration. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it does not fully meet the 5-level standard.
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.
Despite consistently detailed descriptions, several tool pairs have unclear boundaries: `get_subscription_limits` and `get_agent_plan_limits` describe essentially the same agent-slot check, `crm_get_conversation` and `crm_communication_thread` both claim to return the full message thread, and `get_credit_usage_by_agent` vs `get_credit_usage_for_agent` differ only by preposition. At 149 tools, an agent will regularly misselect between these near-duplicates.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun with domain prefixes (`crm_*`, `sdr_*`) and a consistent `preview_*` family that maps cleanly to destructive/expensive actions. Deviations are minor but real: CRM deletes use the inverted `delete_crm_*` form while other CRM ops use `crm_*`, and credit-usage tools mix `by_agent`/`for_agent` prepositions.
149 tools is nearly three times the 50+ threshold the rubric treats as extreme, even though the platform genuinely spans agents, campaigns, audiences, CRM, SDR, billing, and connections. Many could be consolidated without losing capability — e.g. the 11 balance/credit-usage tools, the two LinkedIn-account listers, and the 15+ preview variants.
The surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD/lifecycle coverage for agents, campaigns, audiences, CRM leads/stages, and SDR searches, plus billing, analytics, and connection management. Destructive or costly operations all have preview/approval counterparts, so there are no dead ends. If anything the risk is over-coverage rather than gaps.