Query the Wayback Machine for archived URL snapshots and get first/last capture dates, total snapshot count, and the closest capture to an optional target date.
Query the Wayback Machine for archived snapshots of a URL. Returns first/last capture dates, total snapshot count, and the closest snapshot to an optional target date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| timestamp | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (first/last capture dates, total snapshot count, closest snapshot), which is useful, but it says nothing about rate limits, whether the URL must be publicly reachable, error behavior for never-archived URLs, or snasphot metadata beyond dates.
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 tight sentences with zero filler: the first states the action, the second front-loads the return values. Nothing is redundant and the sizing matches the tool's simplicity.
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?
There is no output schema or annotations to lean on, and the description does cover the essential return values, so it is functional. Still missing are the timestamp format, behavior for unarchived URLs, and any limits, which an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
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. It clarifies that 'timestamp' is an optional target date and that the tool returns the closest snapshot to it, which is real added meaning. However, it never states the expected format for that timestamp (ISO 8601 vs YYYYMMDD) nor whether the URL requires a scheme.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Query the Wayback Machine for archived snapshots of a URL') and even enumerates what is returned, making the tool's function unambiguous. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with any sibling like netintel_url_safety or netintel_domain_age, which a broad toolset would benefit from.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The usage is only implied by the purpose (check historical archives of a URL), leaving the agent to infer it among ~100 siblings covering URL/domain intelligence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.