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 how it behaves: e.g., whether it fetches web pages, handles errors, returns structured data, or has performance considerations. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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: 'Extract social media links and metadata from web pages'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero redundant words, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (extracting data from web pages with 3 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., format of extracted links/metadata), error handling, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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, clearly documenting all three parameters (url, platforms, useCache) with their types, defaults, and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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: 'Extract social media links and metadata from web pages'. It specifies the verb ('extract') and resource ('social media links and metadata'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_links' or 'extract_contact_info', which might also extract links or contact information including social media.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'extract_links' (which might extract all links) or 'extract_contact_info' (which might include social media as part of contact data), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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