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 only mentions extraction and validation. It doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens during validation (e.g., returns errors vs. warnings). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external URLs.

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 front-loads the core functionality ('extract and validate') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear purpose and well-documented 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 the complexity of extracting and validating structured data from URLs, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, or sibling tool differentiation, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a server with many similar extraction tools.

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 are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'validate' entails or how 'schemaTypes' affects output). This meets the baseline of 3 since 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 with specific verbs ('extract and validate') and resources ('schema.org structured data markup'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'extract_structured_data', which could cause confusion about when to use each tool.

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 like 'extract_structured_data' or other extraction tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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