Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Scout MCP Server

Scout MCP Server

Official
by Scout-AI-Labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

scout_scrape

Fetch any web page and get clean, LLM-ready Markdown. Handles JavaScript rendering and bypasses bot defenses to provide structured content.

Instructions

Fetch a web page and return clean, LLM-ready Markdown. Handles JS rendering and bot defenses.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "scout_scrape"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe page URL to scrape
max_charsNoTruncate the Markdown to this many characters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions JS handling and bot defenses, but omits important details like error handling, rate limits, or whether it respects robots.txt. Incomplete for a safe inference.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and result. No wasted words. However, could be more concise by omitting 'LLM-ready' or adding sibling differentiation.

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?

No output schema, but description notes return format as Markdown, which is helpful. Missing details like scalability, error responses, or integration with sibling tools.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for url and max_chars. Baseline score is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description clearly states it fetches a web page and returns clean Markdown for LLMs. It mentions handling JS rendering and bot defenses, which implies differentiation from siblings but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like scout_crawl or scout_extract. The description implies it handles dynamic pages, but no explicit when-to or when-not-to use.

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