screaming-frog-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by stating it returns total size and per-crawl breakdown, which is useful. However, it doesn't cover other traits like performance, error handling, or data freshness, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second details the return values. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly concise.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and output semantics well. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like update frequency or data scope, slightly reducing completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics, explaining what data is returned (total size and per-crawl breakdown), which adds value beyond the 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Show disk usage') and resources ('Screaming Frog's internal crawl storage', 'ProjectInstanceData'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on storage metrics rather than crawl operations like crawl_site or delete_crawl.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies usage for monitoring storage, it doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., before starting a new crawl) or exclusions (e.g., not for real-time data). The context is clear but lacks actionable guidelines.

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