pagesift_batch_scrapeBatch scrape a list of known URLs as one job with shared options and return a job ID for status polling.
Scrape a list of known URLs as one job with the same options. Returns a job id; poll it with pagesift_crawl_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | The URLs to scrape. | |
| options | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.81.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not carry: this is a long-running job that returns an identifier rather than results, requiring polling. It omits failure semantics (per-URL errors, partial failures), which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the required next step. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately discloses the return value (a job id) and the retrieval path (poll crawl_status). It is nearly complete for a complex, heavily nested async tool; only error/failure reporting and result payload shape are left unaddressed.
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 coverage is only 50%, and the large `options` object contains many undocumented properties (mobile, parsers, profile, lockdown, redactPII, includeTags/excludeTags, storeInCache, etc.). The description only says 'with the same options' without explaining any of them or pointing to pagesift_scrape's option semantics explicitly as the reference.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Scrape a list of known URLs as one job'), and the words 'list of known URLs' distinguish it from crawl-based URL discovery. It does not explicitly contrast with the single-URL sibling pagesift_scrape, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 gives the follow-up workflow explicitly: the call is asynchronous and should be polled with pagesift_crawl_status. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or direction to pagesift_scrape for single URLs, but the usage context is clear enough to act on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.