extract_linksCollect links from a web page, optionally filtering by substring pattern and limiting results, to support web research and page navigation extraction.
Собирает ссылки страницы (фильтр по подстроке pattern).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| pattern | No | ||
| max_links | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the substring-filtering behavior; it says nothing about fetching live pages, rate limits, or failure modes on unreachable URLs.
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?
A single compact sentence with the resource named first and the filter qualifier second; nothing is wasted, though brevity here borders on under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. For a simple three-parameter tool this is minimally viable, but the undocumented url and max_links parameters and absent sibling routing leave real gaps.
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 carry parameter meaning, and it explains only one of three parameters (pattern as a substring filter). The required url and the max_links cap (default 20) are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it collects the links of a page, with an optional substring filter. That is clear enough for an agent to know what it returns, though it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings like check_links, extract, or crawl.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives in the sibling set (e.g. check_links for validation, crawl for whole-site traversal). The parenthetical filter hint implies one capability but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.