Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

research_start

Start a durable cross-corpus research job. Submits bounded research over the selected web, arXiv paper, and developer-document sources. Repeated owner-scoped idempotency requests return the original job.

Instructions

Start a durable cross-corpus research job. Submits bounded research over the selected web, arXiv paper, and developer-document sources. Repeated owner-scoped idempotency requests return the original job.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesResearch request; `scope` is `web`, `papers`, `developer`, or `mixed`; `output_format` is `report` or `json`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.12

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does add real value: it discloses durability, that research is "bounded", and the notable idempotency semantics ("repeated owner-scoped idempotency requests return the original job"). It omits return shape, auth/permission needs, and async job-tracking behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the idempotency caveat. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a complex nested request object with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the call returns (a job handle) and how to track it, which the agent needs since this is an async job submission. It covers purpose well but leaves the lifecycle loop under-explained.

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 nested request schema documents scope and output_format enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's hints ("bounded", source selection) only loosely map to the limits and scope fields without adding syntax beyond the schema.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ("Start a durable cross-corpus research job") and scopes it to web, arXiv paper, and developer-document sources. It is clearly the job-creation member of the research_* family, though it never names the siblings (research_status, research_results) it complements.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this initiates a job, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite guidance, and no pointer to research_status/research_results for follow-up. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools