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 'discover and parse' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, potential rate limits, or how errors are handled. For a tool interacting with external URLs, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 interacts with external web pages to extract feeds), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details like error handling or output format. However, the high schema coverage helps compensate, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100% description coverage, so parameters like 'url', 'maxItems', 'includeContent', and 'useCache' are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'discover' relates to the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('discover and parse') and resource ('RSS/Atom feeds from web pages'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_content' or 'extract_structured_data', which might also extract content from web pages, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 many sibling tools like 'extract_content' or 'extract_structured_data' that might handle similar web page processing, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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