stealthguard-402

stealth_scrape_and_sanitize

Bypass Cloudflare anti-bot defenses, scrape URLs into clean LLM-ready Markdown, and sanitize content with deterministic CanaryGuard rules.

Instructions

Bypasses Cloudflare anti-bot via Scrapling, extracts clean DOM to LLM Markdown, and runs CanaryGuard deterministic sanitization. Price: 0.015 USDC on Base.

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": "stealth_scrape_and_sanitize"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Target destination URL
`render_js`	No	Enable stealth headless browser rendering
`strict_mode`	No	Deterministic sanitization strictness

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the anti-bot bypass mechanism and the paid cost (0.015 USDC on Base), which is real operational context, but says nothing about failure modes, rate limits, what CanaryGuard actually strips/redacts, or payment preconditions beyond the price tag.

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 compact sentences, mechanism front-loaded and price last; nothing is wasted. Slightly telegraphic, with tool names dropped in without explanation, but well-sized for the content.

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 exists, and the description only implicitly signals the return format ('LLM Markdown'). It omits error behavior for blocked or failed scrapes and what sanitization output looks like, leaving meaningful gaps for a paid, multi-stage tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already documented. The description adds no syntax or effect detail beyond restating the pipeline stages (e.g. what strict_mode true/false produces), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names three specific actions (Cloudflare bypass via Scrapling, DOM-to-Markdown extraction, CanaryGuard sanitization) tied to a scrape-and-sanitize resource, so the agent knows exactly what pipeline runs. It does not name or contrast itself with the nearest sibling (research_deep_web_dossier), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over the sibling research/scraping tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite (e.g. 'use for bot-protected pages; prefer X for plain HTTP'). Usage must be inferred from the mechanism described.

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

Deploy Server