Verify batches of URLs in one call and classify each as survived, rejected, or repaired, so AI agents can catch broken links and automatically fix invalid web addresses.
Partia kandydatów w JEDNYM wywołaniu: survived / rejected / repaired (dowód sensu auto-korektora). serp domyślnie wyłączony — tu celowo bez wynalazców.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| serp | No | ||
| urls | Yes | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that candidates are processed in a single call and classified as survived / rejected / repaired, which is useful, but it never explains what 'repaired' entails, whether network access is required, or how failures are reported.
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?
It is short (two sentences) and roughly front-loads the batch outcome states, so there is little padding. However, the compressed jargon and parenthetical asides ('dowód sensu auto-korektora', 'bez wynalazców') cost clarity rather than saving space.
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?
For a four-parameter tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. The outcome states partially substitute for a missing return-value description, but the roles of 'top' and 'query' and the meaning of 'repaired' remain unexplained.
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 four parameters, so the description must compensate. It only addresses 'serp' (default off) and loosely implies 'urls' via 'Partia kandydatów'; 'top' and 'query' receive no explanation at all.
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 never states a clear verb+resource such as 'verifies that URLs resolve'. Instead it says 'Partia kandydatów w JEDNYM wywołaniu: survived / rejected / repaired', which only hints at batch processing with three outcome categories and relies on the tool name to convey that links are being verified. It does not differentiate from siblings like web.search or web.render.
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 only usage-related statement is 'serp domyślnie wyłączony' (serp off by default), which is a parameter default rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over web.search or web.render. There is no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.