MCP Web Scrape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It mentions 'filtering options' which hints at some behavior, but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (list of URLs? structured data?), whether it performs network requests, error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool that likely makes external HTTP requests, this is inadequate behavioral 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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action ('extract all links') and includes the key qualifier ('with filtering options'). There's no wasted language, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and this is a tool that likely performs network operations to extract data, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the extracted links are returned in, whether there are rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when the URL is inaccessible. For a tool with 4 parameters and likely complex behavior, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'filtering options' which corresponds to the 'linkType' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, edge cases, or practical examples. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('links from a web page'), and mentions 'filtering options' which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling extraction tools like 'extract_content' or 'extract_structured_data', which would require more specific language about what makes link extraction distinct.

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 available (like 'extract_content', 'extract_structured_data', 'check_broken_links'), there's no indication of when link extraction is appropriate versus other extraction or analysis operations. The mention of 'filtering options' is too vague to serve as meaningful usage guidance.

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