MCP Web Scrape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking 'broken links and redirects,' which implies network requests and potential timeouts, but doesn't specify error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool that likely makes external calls, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Check for broken links and redirects on web pages.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (a tool that likely performs network requests to check links), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., a list of broken links with status codes), error conditions, or performance implications. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'url' as the URL to check, 'checkExternal' for external links). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 for broken links and redirects on web pages.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('broken links and redirects'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_url_status' or 'extract_links,' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'check_url_status' (which might check a single URL's status) and 'extract_links' (which might list links without checking them), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of comparative guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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