APIClaw

openapi_v2_webtools_crawl_status

Poll a crawl job

Poll a crawl job's status. data[] contains already-scraped pages.

Paginate with the skip / limit query params when data[] grows large. Returns 404 when the job id is unknown or belongs to a different tenant — the two cases are deliberately indistinguishable so job-id existence does not leak across tenants.

Responses:

200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "success": true,
  "meta": {
    "requestId": "Requestid",
    "timestamp": "Timestamp"
  }
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "success": {
      "type": "boolean",
      "title": "Success",
      "description": "Whether the request was successful",
      "default": true
    },
    "data": {
      "description": "Response data payload"
    },
    "error": {
      "description": "Error details if request failed"
    },
    "meta": {
      "description": "Metadata for API responses.\n\nCredit fields follow the ADR-0003 parallel-fields strategy (Option 3):\n- `credits_remaining` / `credits_consumed` (int): legacy fields, rounded\n  to whole credits, kept for zero-breaking-change to existing SDK clients.\n- `credits_remaining_exact` / `credits_consumed_exact` (float): new\n  precision-aware fields for clients that opt in to decimal credits.\n\nSee ADR-0003 decision 5 and the \u00a78 deprecation timeline.\n\nTODO(2026-11, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +6mo): mark `credits_remaining` /\n`credits_consumed` as `deprecated=True` in their Field() definitions\nand announce in customer changelog.\nTODO(2027-05, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +12mo): remove the legacy int fields via a\nmajor-version bump of the OpenAPI surface.",
      "properties": {
        "requestId": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Requestid",
          "description": "Unique request identifier"
        },
        "timestamp": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Timestamp",
          "description": "Response timestamp in ISO 8601 format"
        },
        "total": {
          "title": "Total",
          "description": "Total number of records"
        },
        "page": {
          "title": "Page",
          "description": "Current page number"
        },
        "pageSize": {
          "title": "Pagesize",
          "description": "Number of records per page"
        },
        "totalPages": {
          "title": "Totalpages",
          "description": "Total number of pages"
        },
        "creditsRemaining": {
          "title": "Creditsremaining",
          "description": "Remaining API credits (rounded to whole credits; see creditsRemainingExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsConsumed": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumed",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request (rounded; see creditsConsumedExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsRemainingExact": {
          "title": "Creditsremainingexact",
          "description": "Remaining API credits, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "creditsConsumedExact": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumedexact",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "tokensUsage": {
          "description": "Provider token-usage block \u2014 populated on terminal video polls only, null on every non-video endpoint. See TokensUsage for its fields."
        }
      },
      "type": "object",
      "required": [
        "requestId",
        "timestamp"
      ],
      "title": "ResponseMeta"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "required": [
    "meta"
  ],
  "title": "OpenApiResponse[CrawlerCrawlStatus]",
  "examples": []
}

422: Validation Error Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "detail": [
    {
      "loc": [],
      "msg": "Message",
      "type": "Error Type",
      "ctx": {}
    }
  ]
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "detail": {
      "items": {
        "properties": {
          "loc": {
            "items": {},
            "type": "array",
            "title": "Location"
          },
          "msg": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Message"
          },
          "type": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Error Type"
          },
          "input": {
            "title": "Input"
          },
          "ctx": {
            "type": "object",
            "title": "Context"
          }
        },
        "type": "object",
        "required": [
          "loc",
          "msg",
          "type"
        ],
        "title": "ValidationError"
      },
      "type": "array",
      "title": "Detail"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "title": "HTTPValidationError"
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`skip`	No	Pagination offset over completed pages.
`limit`	No	Pagination size.
`job_id`	Yes	Crawl job id.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explains that data[] contains already-scraped pages, that skip/limit are for pagination, and importantly discloses the 404 behavior for unknown or cross-tenant job IDs, deliberately indistinguishable to prevent tenant data leakage. This is a significant behavioral trait beyond simple API mechanics.

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?

The core description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The response schemas add length but are structured and informative, justifying their inclusion. However, the response section is quite verbose, especially the ADR-0003 details within meta, which may be excessive for quick understanding. Still, the main sentences earn their place.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a polling tool: it covers purpose, pagination behavior, error semantics, and includes detailed response schemas embedded in the description. It addresses edge cases like tenant isolation and gives examples. Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema field), the description is more than sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already has a 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that pagination is needed 'when data[] grows large,' and by providing context on the job_id's 404 behavior for security. This enhances the semantic understanding of the parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Poll a crawl job' and immediately clarifies it polls the job's status. This clearly identifies the verb (poll) and the resource (crawl job status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like openapi_v2_webtools_crawl_submit. The mention that data[] contains already-scraped pages further clarifies the tool's role.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: after a crawl job is submitted, to poll its status. It also gives pagination guidance for large data[] results. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All APIClaw tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries, most notably openapi_v2_competitor_product_keywords and openapi_v2_product_traffic_terms, which have identical descriptions. The deprecated openapi_v2_realtime_product duplicates openapi_v3_realtime_product, and openapi_v2_image_embedding overlaps heavily with openapi_v2_fashion_image_embedding.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: a few tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (create_video_asset, list_video_assets, poll_video_task), while the vast majority are prefixed with openapi_v2_/openapi_v3_ followed by nouns or mixed verbs. The route-style prefix is not a meaningful verb and creates an arbitrary split across the tool set.

Tool Count2/5

49 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and spans multiple unrelated domains (Amazon product data, TikTok commerce, fashion vision, web scraping, video generation, billing). The server appears to be an entire REST API surface exposed wholesale rather than a curated set of capabilities.

Completeness3/5

Each domain is individually fairly complete (Amazon search/reviews/keywords/VoC, TikTok search, web tools, video generation), but there are notable gaps: video assets lack update/delete, video tasks lack cancel/list, and there is no singular 'get daily product by ASIN' alongside the realtime variants. The broad scope makes it hard to verify full lifecycle coverage across all domains.

Resources

Need Help?