Retrieve the on-page crawl summary for a paid site audit that was still crawling when delivered. Use the taskId from the audit response.
Fetch the on-page crawl summary of a paid site audit that was still crawling when delivered (free, taskId from the audit response) (free)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The only behavioral signal is the '(free)' tag, oddly duplicated, hinting at no credit cost; there is nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, failure modes, or what the crawl summary contains.
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?
The tool's purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, but the trailing '(free) (free)' duplication is clear waste and the nested parentheticals make the sentence harder to parse than it needs to be.
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 one-parameter fetch with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers where the input comes from but says nothing about the shape or completeness of the returned summary, nor about how it differs from the completed-audit result.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single taskId parameter, but the description compensates by explaining its provenance (returned by the audit response). It does not describe the expected format or validity conditions of the id, so it only partially fills the gap.
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?
It names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (on-page crawl summary) and scopes it to a paid audit that was still crawling at delivery, which implicitly separates it from the full site_audit tool. However, the phrasing is convoluted and it never names the sibling it complements, so the agent must infer the relationship.
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?
The parenthetical '(taskId from the audit response)' implies this is a follow-up call after site_audit, which is useful routing context. It does not state when not to use it or what to do instead if the audit completed normally, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.