Map a website's structure by discovering URLs from a base URL, enabling clear navigation and analysis of site architecture.
Map a website's structure. Returns a list of URLs found starting from the base URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_breadth | No | ||
| instructions | No | ||
| select_paths | No | ||
| allow_external | No | ||
| select_domains | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says the tool starts from a base URL and returns URLs; it does not disclose traversal limits, whether external domains are included, rate limits, or potential side effects of crawling a site.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for an eight-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. Economical writing is good, but here it leaves out essential operational detail.
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?
Given the tool's complexity, absent annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the listed parameters control the crawl, the meaning of the output, or how this tool compares to tavily_crawl.
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 compensate for eight undocumented parameters. It adds meaning only by clarifying the base URL and output; limit, max_depth, max_breadth, instructions, select_paths, allow_external, and select_domains remain unexplained.
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 clear action ('Map a website's structure') and identifies the return value ('a list of URLs found starting from the base URL'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from tavily_crawl, which is a close sibling.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tavily_crawl or tavily_search. The agent is left to infer that 'map' means enumerating URLs, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.