get_pageRetrieve full crawl details for one URL: status, title, meta description, H1 count, canonical, robots directives, redirects, and broken outbound links.
Return everything the crawl recorded about one URL (status, title, meta description, H1 count, canonical, robots, redirects, broken links out).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The page URL as crawled; a missing trailing slash or scheme is tolerated |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the payload contents (status, title, meta description, H1 count, canonical, robots, redirects, broken links out), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only/immutability, permissions, rate limits, or behavior for a URL the crawl never saw.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the verb and scope first, then enumerates the returned fields. No filler, nothing redundant, and the parenthetical earns its place by preempting a follow-up schema read.
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?
With no output schema, the description admirably fills the return-value gap by listing what comes back, and the single required param is trivial. The remaining shortfall is the absence of error/empty-result behavior for an uncrawled URL, which matters slightly for a lookup tool.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'url' parameter is already fully documented in the schema (including trailing-slash/scheme tolerance). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('everything the crawl recorded about one URL') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from the plural-list sibling list_pages. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or stating the contrast, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.
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?
Usage is only implied ('one URL') – an agent can infer this is the per-page drill-down versus list_pages/crawl_site, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.