Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Search Evidence

Search Evidence

by baeseokjae
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_protect_urls

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists raw URLs protected by any historical positive clicks, helping you review which pages should remain shielded during URL protection workflows.

Instructions

Show raw URLs protected by any historical positive clicks.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_protect_urls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsNo
limitNo
cursorNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
dataNo
errorNo
warningsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are limited to URLs with historical positive clicks, but does not mention pagination behavior or how the result set is ordered.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is too compressed to structure the meaning of the tool's filters or pagination.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Annotations and an output schema cover safety and return values, but the description leaves parameter behavior and pagination undocumented. For a filtered, paginated search tool, that is a significant gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters, and the description does not explain any of them. It never clarifies whether "urls" filters output, what "limit" controls, or how "cursor" pagination works.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a specific operation ("Show raw URLs") and a selection criterion ("protected by any historical positive clicks"), but "protected" is unexplained domain jargon. It does not distinguish this tool clearly from search_inspect_urls or other search_* siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus search_inspect_urls, search_traffic, or the other siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases are mentioned.

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