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. It discloses that this is an export operation (implying data retrieval rather than modification) and mentions the output format (CSV files) and next steps (using read_crawl_data). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like whether this consumes resources, has rate limits, requires specific permissions, or how long exports might take.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, parameter explanations provide necessary details without redundancy, and the return statement clarifies next steps. No 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 the tool's complexity (export operation with multiple parameters) and no annotations, the description does well by explaining parameters and mentioning the output schema's content (export_id and CSV files). However, it could better address behavioral aspects like performance expectations or error conditions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining all 4 parameters. It provides specific examples for db_id, export_tabs, bulk_export, and save_report, including default values for export_tabs and clarifying that db_id comes from list_crawls. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Load a saved crawl... and export data as CSV files') and distinguishes it from siblings like list_crawls (which lists crawls) and read_crawl_data (which reads exported files). It explicitly names the resource ('saved crawl from SF's database') and output format ('CSV files'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by mentioning that db_id comes from 'list_crawls' and that exported files should be read with 'read_crawl_data'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like directly accessing crawl data through other means, or when to use it versus delete_crawl for cleanup operations.

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