Skip to main content
Glama
Parker-Fawcett

rebuild-dossier

by Parker-Fawcett
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Crawl site

crawl_site

Discover an app's reachable routes via headless browser, save evidence to .dossier/, and support rebuild-spec generation from existing code.

Instructions

Playwright headless crawl of reachable routes. Emits periodic progress notifications.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesBase URL to crawl
maxPagesNoOptional cap on how many reachable pages to visit. Unset means no limit.
repoPathYesRepo path whose .dossier/ this crawl evidence should be saved under

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
savedToYes
openCasesYes
routesVisitedYes
routesWithConsoleErrorsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.6-paper
    • addedInput schema / properties / maxPages / description
      Added value: +"Optional cap on how many reachable pages to visit. Unset means no limit."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "openCases": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "routesVisited": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "routesWithConsoleErrors": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "savedTo": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "routesVisited",
+    "routesWithConsoleErrors",
+    "openCases",
+    "savedTo"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, and destructive hints. The description adds some behavioral detail by noting it runs headless and emits periodic progress notifications, but it does not clarify what side effects the crawl may produce beyond visiting pages, even though readOnlyHint is false and repoPath suggests saving evidence. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise and readable, though it could have used the extra space to provide more usage context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the schema fully documents all parameters and an output schema exists, the core technical details are covered. However, the description alone does not address when to use the tool, what side effects the crawl might have, or how it relates to the sibling tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains url, maxPages, and repoPath. The description does add a small hint that the crawl follows reachable routes from the base URL, but it does not materially improve on the parameter descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly identifies the action ('crawl'), the resource ('site'), and the method ('Playwright headless'), and specifies the scope as 'reachable routes.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which perform different operations like ingesting, flagging, or resolving.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The intended context is only implied by the word 'crawl,' not explicitly 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