MCP Web Scrape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions crawling behavior but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, timeouts, authentication needs, output format (e.g., XML sitemap vs list), or error handling. For a tool that likely performs extensive network requests, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying both what is generated and how.

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 a crawling tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (critical for a 'generate' tool), performance characteristics, or error conditions. For a tool that likely has significant behavioral implications, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying crawling behavior. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any extra context about parameter interactions or usage examples.

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 ('generate') and resource ('sitemap'), and specifies the method ('by crawling website pages'). It distinguishes from many sibling tools that analyze, extract, or monitor rather than generate sitemaps. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'extract_links' or 'check_broken_links' that might also involve crawling.

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 involving crawling or link extraction (e.g., 'extract_links', 'check_broken_links', 'search_content'), there's no indication of when this specific sitemap generation is preferred. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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