Concurrently fetch multiple URLs in parallel and return their combined Markdown for bulk content extraction and aggregation.
Concurrently scrape multiple URLs in parallel and return their combined Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | ||
| concurrency | No | ||
| use_browser | 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 exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about partial-failure behavior (what happens if one URL fails), rate limits, ordering of the combined output, or what use_browser changes. The output format mention ('combined Markdown') is the one genuine behavioral addition.
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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere rather than being optimally sized for a 3-parameter tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a batch operation with no annotations and zero parameter documentation the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell how concurrency or browser mode should be set, or how failures are reported.
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 three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'In parallel' hints weakly at the concurrency control, but 'concurrency' (default 4) and 'use_browser' (default false) are left entirely unexplained.
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 and resource ('scrape multiple URLs') plus the output shape ('combined Markdown'), and the word 'batch'/'parallel' implicitly separates it from the single-URL siblings like scrape_url. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the operation is unmistakable.
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 guidance and no routing against alternatives such as scrape_url, scrape_dynamic, deep_crawl, or search_and_scrape. The only signal is the implied 'many URLs at once', which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.