Recursively crawl a website or documentation tree to a set depth and combine the pages into unified documentation.
Recursively crawl a website or documentation tree up to max_depth and aggregate into unified documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| start_url | Yes | ||
| path_prefix | No | ||
| use_browser | No | ||
| same_domain_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that results are aggregated into 'unified documentation', which is useful, but it says nothing about rate limits, robots/politeness handling, how max_pages interacts with max_depth, or what happens when the crawl hits the page cap.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the key scoping constraint is front-loaded. It is not padded, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.
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?
The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, but for a six-parameter crawling tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell how depth and page limits interact or whether cross-domain links will be followed by default.
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 0% across six parameters, and the description only implicitly references start_url and max_depth. The four remaining parameters (max_pages, path_prefix, use_browser, same_domain_only) — including the consequential same_domain_only default of true — get no explanation anywhere.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Recursively crawl a website or documentation tree') plus the bounding scope ('up to max_depth'), so the agent knows this is a multi-page recursive fetch rather than a single-page scrape. It never names or contrasts with siblings such as crawl_sitemap, scrape_batch, or search_and_scrape, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With several adjacent tools (crawl_sitemap, scrape_url, scrape_batch, search_and_scrape) the agent must guess which is appropriate for a given multi-page task; only the word 'recursively' hints at a use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.