dawg-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

scrape_crawl

Start a web crawl from a seed URL, returning a job ID for progress tracking. Use URL glob patterns to include or exclude pages within the crawl.

Instructions

Start a crawl job from a seed URL. Returns immediately with a job_id.

Poll progress with scrape_job_status(job_id). Use include_patterns / exclude_patterns (URL glob patterns) to scope the crawl.

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": "scrape_crawl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`url`	Yes
`format`	No	markdown
`max_depth`	No
`max_pages`	No
`concurrency`	No
`include_patterns`	No
`exclude_patterns`	No
`main_content`	No
`timeout_ms`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions async return and polling, but omits details on resource consumption, cancellation, error handling, or whether the tool is non-destructive. Minimal but acceptable for a crawl initiation.

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 concise at 3 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing key parameters) but avoids fluff.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return format (only that it returns job_id), error cases, or meaningful parameter values. An agent would need external knowledge to use the tool fully.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in input schema). The description only explains include_patterns and exclude_patterns, leaving 7 other parameters (format, max_depth, max_pages, concurrency, main_content, timeout_ms) undocumented. This forces the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it starts a crawl job from a seed URL and immediately returns a job_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scrape_page (single page) and scrape_batch (batch of pages) by highlighting its async nature and polling mechanism.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: when to start a crawl job, how to poll progress via scrape_job_status, and hints on using include/exclude patterns. However, it lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like scrape_batch for batch crawling.

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