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 'check robots.txt compliance' but doesn't specify what compliance entails, how results are returned, whether it's a read-only operation, or any rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how compliance is assessed, or any behavioral details, which are crucial for a validation tool. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 both parameters ('url' and 'userAgent') with their types and purposes. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as examples or edge cases, but the schema is sufficient, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check') and resource ('robots.txt compliance for specific URLs'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_url_status' or 'scan_vulnerabilities', which might also involve URL validation aspects, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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, such as other validation or analysis tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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