google_crawlCrawl any URL to extract its title, meta, text, and outbound links. Use it to analyze web page content.
Crawl any URL (e.g. a search result): title, meta, text, outbound links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| include_links | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at the extraction scope via the returned field list, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, redirect/robots handling, or side effects of crawling an arbitrary URL.
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 short sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than deliberate tightness.
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 re-explained, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation the definition leaves the two optional controls and the crawling behavior entirely undefined for a tool that fetches arbitrary external 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 description coverage is 0% for all 3 parameters. The description only obliquely maps 'outbound links' to include_links and never mentions max_chars (which defaults to 8000) or the meaning/units of these controls, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Crawl') with a resource ('any URL') and enumerates the extracted artifacts (title, meta, text, outbound links). This clearly separates it from the sibling search/quote/translate tools, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.
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?
'Crawl any URL (e.g. a search result)' implies the context of fetching page content behind a link, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the follow-up to a search result rather than a search itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.