Skip to main content
Glama

MeshArc

by dev.mesharc
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Keep a crawl as a project

keep_crawl_as_project

Turn a crawl_site crawl into a project, so the site is watched over time and each later run is compared against this one. Nothing is fetched again and it costs no credits: the crawl's pages become the project's first run. Use it after crawl_site when the site is worth watching; to start a watched site from scratch use create_project. Without it a crawl and its pages expire after a day. It counts toward the plan's project limit (refused with plan_limit when full). Returns the new project, whose id the other project tools take.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoA name for the project; omit to keep the crawl's own name.
crawl_idYesThe crawl_id a crawl_site answer (or get_job on a crawl) returned.
scheduleNoHow often the project re-crawls on its own; 'manual' (default) runs only when start_run is called. Every run spends credits.manual

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / crawl_id / description
      Added value: +"The crawl_id a crawl_site answer (or get_job on a crawl) returned."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"A name for the project; omit to keep the crawl's own name."
    • addedInput schema / properties / schedule / description
      Added value: +"How often the project re-crawls on its own; 'manual' (default) runs only when start_run is called. Every run spends credits."
    • addedInput schema / properties / schedule / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "manual",
+  "hourly",
+  "daily",
+  "weekly"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), while the description adds the traits that actually matter: no refetching, no credit cost, the crawl's pages becoming the first run, the day-long expiry if unused, the plan project-limit interaction with a named plan_limit refusal, and the return value's id being consumed by other project tools.

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?

Front-loads the core transformation, then layers usage routing, cost/expiry caveats, and the return contract in roughly priority order. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the length keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states what is returned (the new project and its id, used by other project tools) and covers cost, expiry, and plan-limit failure. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, crawl_id, schedule) are already documented in the schema, including crawl_id's provenance and the credit cost of scheduled runs. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Turn a crawl_site crawl into a project') with the scope of what that produces ('the site is watched over time'). It explicitly differentiates itself from create_project, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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 a clear trigger ('Use it after crawl_site when the site is worth watching') and names the alternative for the contrasting case ('to start a watched site from scratch use create_project'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are stated.

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

All MeshArc 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