Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
xeryuscrawl

xeryuscrawl

by KingXeryus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

map_site

Collect every address on a site from sitemaps, feeds, and links, and optionally rank results by a search phrase to plan crawls or find relevant pages.

Instructions

Every address on a site, from its sitemaps, feeds and links; optionally ranked by a search phrase.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "map_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
limitNo
searchNo
include_subdomainsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals where URLs come from (sitemaps, feeds, links), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about the 500 default cap, whether the site is actually crawled, timing, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact clause-group with the core concept front-loaded and no filler. It is a sentence fragment with no explicit verb, which slightly undercuts clarity but wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover result shape, the limit cap, and subdomain behavior. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It only gestures at 'url' and 'search' (the ranking phrase); 'limit' and 'include_subdomains' are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and outcome: 'Every address on a site', enumerating URLs, which is distinct from siblings like scrape/crawl/extract. It does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with them, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Every address on a site' implies the discovery use case and 'optionally ranked by a search phrase' hints at relevance ordering, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus crawl/search/deep_research guidance and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools