Extract text from any SLIIT Courseweb (Moodle) URL to inspect page layout and content, helping AI assistants understand course pages before syncing or tracking tasks.
Scrape the text content of any Courseweb URL to investigate the layout
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to scrape |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it returns text content (implying a read), but never states whether authentication is required (the presence of set_session_cookie and interactive_login siblings strongly suggests it is), whether the scrape is rate-limited, how dynamic content is handled, or what happens on failure.
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?
A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no redundancy. The 'investigate the layout' clause is the only slightly expendable element.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return type (text content). However, with no annotations and a sibling set centered on sessions and logins, the omission of auth expectations leaves a real gap for an agent deciding whether it can call this directly.
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 100% with a single documented url parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the qualifier 'any Courseweb URL', which scopes the domain but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.
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 (scrape) and resource (text content of a Courseweb URL), which distinguishes it from download_file and the login/session siblings. The trailing phrase 'to investigate the layout' muddies the intent slightly by framing it as a debugging aid rather than a content-retrieval tool.
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?
'To investigate the layout' implies a use case but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over download_file or the structured siblings like get_announcements. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.