screaming-frog-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers excellent behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns about permanent deletion ('This permanently deletes the crawl data. It cannot be undone.'), clearly indicating destructive behavior. This goes beyond what minimal schema would convey about this high-risk operation.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then parameter guidance, then critical warning. Every sentence earns its place - the first explains what and why, the second explains parameter sourcing, the third provides essential safety warning. Zero wasted words.

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, parameter guidance, and explicit permanent deletion warning. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. For a high-risk tool with 1 parameter, this covers all essential information an agent needs.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that db_id comes from 'list_crawls', providing crucial context about parameter sourcing that isn't in the schema. For a single parameter with no schema documentation, this fully compensates and adds practical guidance.

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 specific action ('Delete a crawl') and resource ('from Screaming Frog's internal database') with explicit purpose ('to free disk space'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_crawls (read-only) and export_crawl (data extraction) by focusing on permanent removal.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to free disk space) and references list_crawls as the source for the required db_id parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among siblings like export_crawl for data preservation before deletion.

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