jevcrawl

map

Rank a site's URLs by how likely they answer a goal without returning page content, so you can decide which pages to scrape.

Instructions

Rank the URLs of a site by how likely they are to answer a goal, without returning content.

Runs the same best-first exploration as crawl but only scores links. Use it to decide which pages deserve a scrape, or to see what a site offers on a topic.

Returns urls: the top limit entries, best first, each {url, priority, p_target, p_hub, anchor, found_on} (p_target: the page itself likely answers the goal; p_hub: it likely leads to pages that do), plus pages (fetched) and stats. On failure: {"error": code, "message": ...}.

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": {
      "start_url": "<start_url>",
      "goal": "<goal>"
    },
    "name": "map"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal`	Yes
`limit`	No
`max_pages`	No
`start_url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that content is not returned, that pages are still fetched (up to `max_pages`), the exact return shape including `p_target` vs `p_hub` semantics, and the error envelope. It stops short of cost/latency/rate-limit or crawl-scope caveats, which matter for a tool that actually performs network fetches.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then differentiation, then usage, then return shape — a sensible information hierarchy with no filler sentences. Some length is spent restating return fields that an output schema already covers, which is the only real slack.

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?

Return values and error format are well covered (and the output schema helps), so the read path is clear. However, the exploration semantics are thin: nothing explains how `max_pages` bounds the crawl, how it relates to `limit`, or what the rough cost of a call is — gaps that matter for a tool that fetches pages before ranking them.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: `limit` is explained ('top `limit` entries, best first') and `goal` is implied by the ranking premise. `max_pages` — the parameter that controls how much fetching happens and interacts with `limit` — and `start_url` are never mentioned, leaving the costliest knob undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: rank a site's URLs by likelihood of answering a goal, explicitly 'without returning content'. It directly differentiates itself from `crawl` ('runs the same best-first exploration… but only scores links') and from `scrape` (via the routing advice), so an agent can place it among siblings without reading schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

States the decision context explicitly: 'Use it to decide which pages deserve a `scrape`, or to see what a site offers on a topic.' It also names the alternative it is most likely to be confused with (`crawl`) and the exact difference, which is the routing information an agent needs.

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

Deploy Server

map