Enhanced Web Scraper MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking server status but doesn't describe what 'running' means (e.g., HTTP response codes, timeout behavior), what 'app status' includes (e.g., bundle status, connected devices), error handling, or network requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external services.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('check if... running and get... status') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, with zero redundant information.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that checks external service status. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'running' (success criteria), what 'app status' returns, error conditions, or network dependencies. For a tool with 2 parameters and potential complexity in interpreting server responses, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (host and port) with clear descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check' and 'get') and identifies the target resource ('Expo development server' and 'app status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on server status checking rather than UI interaction or testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential non-sibling alternatives like general network checking tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., when Expo dev server should be running), exclusions (e.g., not for production servers), or compare with sibling tools that might overlap in functionality. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.