Discover every reachable URL within a website domain in under 2 seconds. Filter results by keyword to target specific pages.
Explores and returns all reachable URLs within a website domain under 2 seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The target website domain to map. | |
| search | No | Optional keyword to filter discovered URLs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool crawls and returns URLs, but it does not explain output format, crawl limits, what 'reachable' means, failure modes, or rate-limit behavior. The 'under 2 seconds' qualifier is a performance claim rather than meaningful behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence that states the core purpose up front. No redundant clauses or unnecessary details are included, although the time qualifier adds limited value.
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 description covers the basic purpose and return concept, and the schema covers both parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks details about the response structure, potential limitations, and exact crawling behavior beyond 'all reachable URLs.'
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 coverage is 100%, with both url and search described in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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: it explores and returns all reachable URLs within a website domain. This clearly distinguishes the map behavior from the sibling scrape/search/extract tools, even without sibling descriptions.
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?
The intended use is implied: call this when you need all reachable URLs for a domain. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention any alternatives among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.