Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

rothys_pages

List static pages from Rothy's with pagination, returning handles, titles, URLs, text content, and dates. Set page and limit (up to 250) to browse available pages.

Instructions

List Rothy's static pages. Lists static pages from Rothy's. page starts at 1 and limit defaults to 50, up to 250. Each item has handle, title, url, plain-text content and dates. A valid but empty page returns an empty pages array. With transport_mode set to ssr_embedded, items hold only handle, url and updated_at.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page, defaults to 1
limitNoMaximum static pages, defaults to 50 and supports up to 250

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.16.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the returned item fields, that an empty valid page yields an empty `pages` array, and that a `transport_mode=ssr_embedded` mode reduces items to `handle`, `url`, `updated_at`. It does not cover auth requirements, and it oddly references a `transport_mode` parameter that is absent from the input schema, which could confuse the agent.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening two sentences say the same thing twice ('List Rothy's static pages. Lists static pages from Rothy's.'), wasting the front-loaded position. The genuinely useful return-shape and empty-page details come later, so structure is only adequate.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, it adequately explains return fields, pagination defaults and empty-page behavior. But it omits usage guidance versus `rothys_page` and introduces a `transport_mode` param not present in the schema, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's pagination details (page starts at 1, limit defaults to 50 up to 250) merely restate the schema and add no syntax or semantic value beyond what is provided.

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 (list) and resource (Rothy's static pages), so the core purpose is clear. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling `rothys_page` (singular), which presumably retrieves a single page, leaving an agent to guess which one to pick.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (`rothys_page`). The agent is told what it lists but not when this tool is the right choice over its singular counterpart.

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