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. While 'scan' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a passive scan or involves active probing, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., report format, severity levels). For a security tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to clarity, making it a model of conciseness.

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 security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., scan depth, timeouts), output format, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a security context.

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 three parameters (url, scanTypes, useCache) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of vulnerability types or caching implications, resulting in a baseline score of 3 where 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 as 'Scan web pages for common security vulnerabilities' with a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('web pages'), making it distinct from most sibling tools that focus on analysis, extraction, or monitoring rather than security scanning. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential security-related siblings like 'check_ssl_certificate' or 'check_privacy_policy'.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare it to similar tools like 'check_ssl_certificate' for specific vulnerability types, or indicate scenarios where it's most appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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