Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

web_crawl

Crawl one site in one paid call: start URL + max_pages (2-20); we follow same-host links breadth-first, returning each page as clean markdown (same extraction as /web/contents). Priced at $0.001 per requested page, quoted as max_pages up front — finding fewer pages is still a complete delivery. Failed pages are skipped and listed in skipped[]; the call still settles. Only an unreadable start page is a 400, no charge. USDC on Base, no account, no API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe http(s) start URL of the site to crawl. Literal IP addresses, localhost and non-http(s) schemes are rejected.
max_pagesNoMaximum pages to crawl, breadth-first over same-host links (2-20, default 5). Priced at $0.001 per requested page; finding fewer pages is still a complete delivery.
max_chars_per_pageNoMaximum content length per page in characters (1000-20000, default 5000); longer pages are cut and flagged truncated

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details crawling behavior (breadth-first, same-host), pricing per page, failure handling (skipped pages listed, start page error returns 400), and payment method (USDC on Base). No gaps.

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?

Information-dense and well-structured, but slightly long (multiple sentences). Could be tightened without losing clarity, but front-loaded with core function.

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?

Covers return format (clean markdown per page, skipped array), edge cases (failed pages, unreachable start page), pricing, and payment. No output schema exists, but description adequately explains what to expect.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds significant context: pricing per requested page, that finding fewer pages is still complete delivery, failed pages skipped and listed, start page unreachable is 400 no charge. This meaningfully supplements schema.

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 the tool crawls one site, starting from a URL, with max_pages, breadth-first, returning each page as markdown. This distinguishes it from siblings like web_contents (single page) or web_search (search results).

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?

Includes pricing, page limits, behavior on failures, and payment method. Could explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., web_contents for single pages), but context from sibling names makes it clear enough.

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

All agentdata-nl toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action and domain: country-specific company checks (check_ch_company, check_fr_company, etc.), insolvency checks, crypto signals, x402 network tools, etc. Descriptions are detailed and make boundaries clear, with no two tools appearing to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow very consistent patterns: 'check_<country>_<entity>' for registers, 'crypto_*' for crypto intelligence, 'x402_*' for x402 network functions, 'screen_*' for screening, and a few free-form names like 'verify_eu_vat' and 'lookup_lei' that still fit the verb_noun style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

39 tools is high but justified by the broad scope: the server aggregates many country-specific checks, insolvency registers, crypto tools, x402 monitoring, and auxiliary functions (like phone number buying, LEI lookup). Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is not excessive given the coverage. A slight reduction could be possible by merging some country checks, but overall it's reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The server covers major European company registers (CH, UK, FR, NL, NO, PL, CZ, FI), insolvency checks (NL, FR), sanctions screening, VAT validation, crypto market intelligence, and x402 network tools. It acknowledges gaps (e.g., no German check) and provides fallback tools like 'screen_eu_supplier' and 'file_agent_want'. Minor missing pieces (e.g., Italian company check) keep it from a perfect 5.

Resources