PyreCrawl

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

batch_scrape

Scrape multiple URLs in one parallel call. Deduplicates and caches requests automatically, and isolates per-URL failures so other URLs still succeed.

Instructions

Scrape MANY URLs in ONE call (parallel, deduped, cache-aware).

Args: urls: Target URLs (deduped automatically; empties dropped). prefer: "auto" | "fast" | "stealth" | "llm". timeout: per-URL timeout in seconds. max_concurrency: parallel workers (default 4). include_html: include raw HTML per result (large; off by default).

Returns {requested, unique, succeeded, failed, results[]}. Per-URL failures are isolated — other URLs still succeed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`urls`	Yes
`prefer`	No	auto
`timeout`	No
`include_html`	No
`max_concurrency`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.1Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions parallel processing, deduplication, cache-awareness, and per-URL failure isolation, but lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., cache writes) and rate limits, especially with no annotations provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured, conveying essential information without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The return shape and per-URL error isolation are summarized, providing adequate context for a batch operation, though a full output schema is not specified.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Each parameter's purpose is described (URLs, preference mode, timeout, concurrency, HTML inclusion), though the `prefer` enum values are listed without explanation of their differences.

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 states the tool scrapes multiple URLs in one call, explicitly distinguishing it from single-URL scraping via the sibling `scrape` tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for batch scenarios but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `scrape` or `crawl`, leaving selection to inference.

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

Install Server