Scrapy MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions scraping methods and extraction rules but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, potential for blocking, error handling, or what 'extract its content' entails. For a web scraping tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and risks.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by bullet points for methods and a final sentence on extraction rules. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (web scraping with multiple methods) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It covers purpose and methods well, and an output schema exists (reducing need to explain returns), but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like limitations or errors. For a tool with siblings like 'scrape_with_stealth', more context on trade-offs would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the four scraping methods (auto, simple, scrapy, selenium) and mentioning extraction rules, which helps interpret the 'extract_config' and 'method' parameters. However, it doesn't detail the 'wait_for_element' parameter or provide examples for extraction rules, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('scrape') and resource ('single webpage'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'scrape_multiple_webpages' by specifying 'single'. It also mentions content extraction, which differentiates it from tools like 'extract_links' or 'get_page_info'.

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 description provides clear context on when to use different scraping methods (auto, simple, scrapy, selenium) based on needs like speed or JavaScript support, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings. It implies usage scenarios but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to tools like 'scrape_with_stealth'.

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