lookup_crawlerThe full index record for one crawler: operator, category, robots.txt token and stance, user-agent substring and example, verification method, mirrored IP-range endpoint, and what blocking it costs. An unknown slug returns near matches. Example: slug='claudebot'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Crawler slug, name or robots.txt token. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that unknown slugs return near matches and by detailing the output record's contents. No contradiction with 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?
Three compact sentences: output contents, edge-case behavior, and a concrete example. Information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes to correct invocation.
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?
With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly by listing the record's fields. The single parameter is fully documented, and the unknown-slug behavior rounds out what the agent needs to know.
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% and the parameter description already explains 'slug, name or robots.txt token.' The description adds a concrete example and notes near-match behavior, which is helpful but not a major semantic addition beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Look up one crawler') and enumerates the exact contents of the full index record. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_crawlers and classify_user_agent.
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 context is clear: retrieve the full index record for a single crawler by slug. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the singular 'one crawler' makes the intended use obvious next to list_crawlers.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: classifying user-agent strings, verifying IP addresses, listing, looking up, generating robots.txt, and checking data freshness. The explicit cross-reference between classify_user_agent and is_verified_crawler_ip clarifies rather than blurs their boundaries.
Almost all tool names follow a predictable snake_case verb_noun pattern such as classify_user_agent, list_crawlers, and lookup_crawler. whats_changed deviates slightly from the verb_noun style but remains consistent in lowercase snake_case, so the naming is mostly coherent.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a crawler index service. Each tool covers a distinct need without overlapping or unnecessary additions.
The tool surface covers the full workflow for understanding and managing crawler data: discovery, identification via UA or IP, detail lookup, robots.txt generation, and freshness monitoring. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.