Detects documentation drift by identifying domains with accelerated redirects so AI agents can flag sources whose URLs or content may have changed; tune sensitivity with a threshold.
Detektor driftu: domeny z przyspieszonymi przekieraniami.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threshold | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only scan, what output shape it returns, whether it scans a single domain or the whole crawl, or how long it takes. Only the detection target is disclosed.
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?
One short sentence is not wasteful, but here brevity is under-specification rather than crispness: it front-loads a label and omits everything an agent needs. It also switches to Polish while the tool name and all siblings are English, costing clarity for no gain.
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 is structurally simple (one optional param, no nested objects, no output schema), so the bar is low, but the description still fails to explain the sole parameter or the return behavior, and there are no annotations to fill the gap.
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% and the single parameter 'threshold' is a bare number with no type, unit, default, or scale meaning. The description does not mention 'threshold' at all, so the agent cannot know whether it is a redirect count, a rate, or a sensitivity score.
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 names a specific detector for a specific signal (domains with accelerated/heightened redirects), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, 'drift' and 'przekierania' are not defined, and with a sibling named web.drift_report the agent cannot easily tell whether this detects drift or reports it. Purpose is implied, not pinned down.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this, when to prefer web.drift_report or web.search, or what prerequisite data is needed. The only guidance is what the tool nominally detects, which the agent must infer into a use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.