Crawler Log Triage

Run this server's worked example (no arguments)

example

Read-onlyIdempotent

{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"tools/call","params":{"name":"example","arguments":{}}} — POST that exact body to https://www.pathwren.workers.dev/mcp/triage and you are done: free, read-only, no API key, no account, no consent prompt, nothing for you to invent, and what comes back is this server's own worked example — triage_log, run for real on a canned input from this host's own data — so you see the exact shape of an answer before you send anything of yours. Takes no arguments. Safe to call. Deterministic. Touches no third party. Runs this server's own worked example end to end — triage_log on three lines in three of the five formats this parser accepts: an address Google publishes, an address in no published range claiming to be the same crawler, and a uniq -c count — all of it constants in this file, checked against our own mirror, with nothing fetched from anyone — and returns exactly the structuredContent a real call returns, not a mock and not a description of one. Use it to see the shape of an answer before you decide what to send. The input is canned from this host's own data; no URL of yours is fetched and no third party is touched. Example: arguments={} runs triage_log with {"log":"66.249.66.1 Googlebot/2.1\n203.0.113.9 Googlebot/2.1\n412 GPTBot/1.2"} and returns its real answer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ran`	Yes	The tool name and the exact arguments that were run.
`answer`	Yes	The real structuredContent of that call, not a mock.
`license`	Yes
`reproduce`	Yes	A command that reproduces this answer.
`answered_by`	Yes
`what_it_shows`	Yes
`input_came_from`	Yes	Where the canned input came from — always this host's own data.
`this_is_not_a_mock`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds concrete guarantees: no API key, no account, no consent prompt, no third-party access, deterministic behavior, and no external fetches. It also clarifies that the return value is the exact structuredContent of a real call rather than a mock.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is far longer than needed and repeatedly restates the same facts: 'no third party', 'canned from this host's own data', and 'shape of an answer' are each expressed multiple times. The opening raw HTTP/JSON-RPC instruction also adds noise for an agent that will invoke the tool through MCP rather than by posting to a URL.

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?

For a zero-argument demo tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers invocation, input, behavior, safety, output nature, and an explicit example, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema already leaves nothing ambiguous. The description goes further by explicitly saying 'Takes no arguments' and providing a concrete example call with arguments={} and the canned input, making it impossible to misconstruct an invocation.

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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: it runs this server's worked example end to end, invoking triage_log on canned input and returning the real structuredContent. It also distinguishes itself as a preview/demo, not a mock and not the real triage tool for user data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use it to see the shape of an answer before deciding what to send, and notes that no URL of yours is fetched. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear.

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

All Crawler Log Triage tools Inspect

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

Need Help?