Submit a list of URLs to be checked. Returns a job_id that can be polled via get_job_status or fetched via get_job_results. For up to ~200 URLs this tool waits for completion (up to 60 seconds) and returns the results directly; for larger jobs it returns early with job_id and the agent should poll.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | URLs to check. Each must include http:// or https:// scheme. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: return value (job_id), synchronous vs asynchronous behavior depending on job size, timeout, and how to retrieve results via sibling tools. This is valuable context for the agent's decision-making.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains return behavior and polling. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
For a job-submission tool with no output schema, this description covers all essential aspects: the action, the return value, how to use sibling tools, and how to handle different job sizes. It gives an agent complete guidance for correct invocation and follow-up.
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?
The schema already fully documents the 'urls' parameter including the scheme requirement. The description adds a meaningful constraint (~200 URL threshold for synchronous processing) that affects how the parameter value is used, going 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?
The description clearly states the tool submits a list of URLs for checking, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the resulting job_id and the polling/fetching options.
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?
Explicitly explains the behavior for two cases: small jobs (≤~200 URLs) wait up to 60s and return results directly, larger jobs return early with a job_id to poll. This gives concrete when-to-use and how-to-proceed guidance, differentiating it from the sibling polling tools.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: submitting URLs, checking job status, fetching results, and retrieving credit balance. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_job_status, submit_urls), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or unnecessary complexity.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: submission, status polling, result retrieval, and usage tracking. No obvious gaps for a bulk URL checker.
