Recovers dead or moved URLs via HTTP requests, helping agents resolve broken links and retrieve the intended web content.
Recover a dead or moved URL through HTTP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| caller | No | mcp | |
| domain | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.5Input schema / properties / callerAdded value: +{
+ "default": "mcp",
+ "title": "Caller",
+ "type": "string"
+}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 of behavioral disclosure. It says recovery happens 'through HTTP', but does not mention authentication, rate limits, redirect-following behavior, what 'recover' concretely means, or what happens on failure. For a network-facing recovery tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is concise and easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a headline purpose statement, though the terseness leaves room for useful detail that could have been added without bloat.
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 tool has four parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers only the basic idea of recovering a URL and omits any explanation of the three optional parameters, behavioral details, or sibling differentiation. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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 four parameters, and the description only mentions the URL as the object of recovery. It adds no meaning for the optional title, caller, or domain parameters, nor does it explain the expected URL format. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Recover' a 'URL'. It specifies the condition 'dead or moved' and the mechanism 'through HTTP', so the agent can understand the basic operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as recover_url_v2 or recover_dead_article, which is a missed opportunity for a 5.
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 phrase 'dead or moved URL' implies the usage context, so the agent can infer this tool is for reviving broken links. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus recover_url_v2 or recover_dead_article, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied, not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.