Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

skims_pages

List SKIMS static pages with pagination, returning handles, titles, URLs, plain-text content, and timestamps; set page and limit to browse up to 250 items per request.

Instructions

List SKIMS static pages. Lists SKIMS static pages, 50 per request by default (limit up to 250), with page starting at 1. Each page has its handle, title, URL, plain-text content and timestamps. An empty result is a normal 200. When transport_mode is ssr_embedded, items carry 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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose pagination defaults (50, up to 250), that an empty result is a normal 200, and that returned fields vary by transport mode. However, it references a `transport_mode` input that does not exist in the schema, which introduces ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

The scope statement is front-loaded and the sentences are dense and information-bearing, but the opening two clauses are redundant ('List SKIMS static pages. Lists SKIMS static pages, ...'), which is pure duplication.

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?

Since no output schema exists, describing the returned fields (handle, title, URL, plain-text content, timestamps) is genuinely useful. The picture is incomplete because the transport_mode behavior is asserted without a corresponding parameter, leaving the agent unable to control or predict it.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with their defaults and bounds. The description largely repeats that ('50 per request by default', '`page` starting at 1') without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so the 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 and resource ('List SKIMS static pages'), which clearly distinguishes it from the singular skims_page detail tool and other SKIMS siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus skims_page, skims_sitemaps, or skims_collections. The only conditional content is about response shape (transport_mode), not about invocation conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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