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 'without any formatting or HTML', which hints at output behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with cached content (implied by the useCache parameter). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, though it does add some context about the output format.

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 plain text content without any formatting or HTML'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and output format but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values, which is a gap. It's complete enough for basic use but has clear room for improvement.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (url, removeWhitespace, useCache) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: 'Extract plain text content without any formatting or HTML'. It specifies the verb ('extract') and resource ('plain text content'), distinguishing it from siblings like extract_content (which might preserve formatting) or extract_structured_data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., extract_entities or extract_keywords), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 when to choose extract_text_only over extract_content, extract_entities, or other extraction siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and 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.