Inspect a public page to identify and list likely content collection links. Use it first on unfamiliar sites, then ask the user which collection to target.
Inspect one public page and list likely content links.
This never downloads a collection. Use it first for an unfamiliar site, then ask the user which collection they want.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| instructions | No | Find likely content collections. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it does disclose the key scope limit (single public page, no collection download), which implies a read-only probe. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or how the returned links are ranked, leaving notable behavioral gaps.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope constraint and usage ordering. No filler.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should describe what 'list likely content links' actually returns and what 'instructions' does. The core workflow is conveyed, but these gaps leave an agent guessing on return shape and the second parameter.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'url' is self-evident, but 'instructions' (with a default of 'Find likely content collections.') is a non-obvious parameter whose effect on the inspection is never explained in 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?
States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (one public page) plus the delivered artifact (likely content links), which cleanly separates it from start_collection/create_collection siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it isn't a top-tier differentiation.
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?
"Use it first for an unfamiliar site, then ask the user which collection they want" gives explicit ordering and a follow-up step, and "never downloads a collection" rules out the obvious wrong expectation. It does not name which sibling to call next, but the when-to-use condition is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.