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 states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (especially since there's no output schema). For a tool with no annotations, 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information.

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 of web scraping/form extraction, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what the output structure entails, potential limitations (e.g., JavaScript-rendered forms), error cases, or performance considerations. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more 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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all four parameters (url, includeHidden, includeDisabled, useCache). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: extracting form elements and their structure from web pages. It specifies the verb 'extract' and the resource 'form elements and their structure', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_content or extract_tables. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., extract_structured_data might overlap in some contexts), 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 many sibling tools for extracting different types of web content (e.g., extract_links, extract_tables, extract_structured_data), there's no indication of when forms specifically are needed or what scenarios warrant this tool over others. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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