Crawl any URL and return its content as Markdown, with options to wait for dynamic elements before extraction.
주어진 URL을 크롤링해서 마크다운으로 반환한다.
Args: url: 크롤링할 URL. wait_seconds: HTML을 받기 전 대기 시간(초). JS 동적 로딩 페이지에 사용. wait_selector: 이 CSS 셀렉터가 나타날 때까지 대기. 지정 시 wait_seconds보다 우선.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| wait_seconds | No | ||
| wait_selector | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the waiting behavior for dynamic pages (wait_seconds, wait_selector) and the priority of wait_selector, which is useful. However, it omits error handling, timeout behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects beyond fetching the page.
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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary detail. The only minor loss is not using bullet points, but the format is acceptable.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and parameters adequately, and an output schema exists to define the return format. However, it does not mention any limitations, error scenarios, or when it should not be used, and it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, it is slightly below the ideal completeness.
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?
The description includes an Args section that explains each parameter beyond the schema titles. It clarifies that wait_seconds is for JS dynamic loading and that wait_selector overrides wait_seconds when specified. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds meaningful semantics.
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?
The description clearly states the action (crawl), the target (URL), and the output format (markdown). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tools (crawl_screenshot and crawl_structured) based on the output type, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative routing. Usage context is only implied by the markdown output, which is insufficient for an agent to make a confident choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.