screaming-frog-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions checking status but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid crawl_id), response format, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The additional 'Args' section is concise and relevant. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured for better readability.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose and parameter source but misses behavioral details and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for informed tool selection.

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 adds meaning by explaining that 'crawl_id' is 'returned by crawl_site,' which clarifies its source and purpose beyond the schema's basic title ('Crawl Id'). However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates somewhat but does not fully detail constraints or examples, meeting the baseline for minimal param info.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check the status of a running or completed crawl.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('crawl'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like 'list_crawls' or 'read_crawl_data', which might also provide status-related information. This clarity is sufficient but lacks sibling distinction.

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 implies usage by referencing 'crawl_id returned by crawl_site,' suggesting it should be used after initiating a crawl. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_crawls' for broader status checks or 'read_crawl_data' for detailed results. The context is implied but not comprehensive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.