Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
screaming-frog-mcp

screaming-frog-mcp

by marykovziridze
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sf_check

Verify Screaming Frog SEO Spider installation and CLI accessibility to check version and license status for headless crawls.

Instructions

Verify that Screaming Frog SEO Spider is installed and the CLI is accessible. Returns version info and license status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sf_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (version info, license status) but does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or network access needs. The behavior is implied as a read-only check, which is adequate for a simple verification tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and return information. It is complete enough for a simple verification tool, though additional behavioral detail (e.g., error states) could elevate it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist in the input schema, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what is being verified and what is returned, fulfilling the purpose of parameter documentation by explaining the tool's context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Verify') and clearly identifies the resource (Screaming Frog SEO Spider installation/CLI). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like crawl_site and crawl_status by focusing on installation and accessibility checks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The usage context is implied as a prerequisite check, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools