Skip to main content
Glama

Crawlora MCP

web_crawl_status

Read-only

Poll a crawl job and return its current state and cumulative credit usage. Pass the owned job ID from submission.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "web_crawl_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesrequired,Owned crawl job ID returned by web_crawl_submit.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that credit usage is cumulative, which hints at cost implications, but it does not disclose whether each poll itself consumes credits or what state transitions exist — meaningful gaps for a polling tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and return payload front-loaded before the parameter instruction. Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return details need not be spelled out, and the description adequately covers the action and input source. It is slightly thin on polling lifecycle (when the job is finished, whether to keep polling), but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (owned ID returned at submission). The description's "owned job ID from submission" restates rather than extends the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (poll) and resource (crawl job) and what it returns (current state, cumulative credit usage). It is distinguishable from web_crawl_results, but the description never names that sibling to sharpen the boundary between status-checking and results-retrieval.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Pass the owned job ID from submission" implies this tool is used after submitting a crawl, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus web_crawl_results or web_crawl_cancel, and doesn't say whether to poll repeatedly or how often.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources