Web Scraper MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('清理' meaning clean/delete). It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not confirmed), if it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or if it's reversible. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic purpose.

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 in Chinese ('清理所有下载的图片文件') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 tool's likely destructive nature (cleaning/deleting files), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on safety (e.g., confirmation prompts, error handling), output (what's returned), and integration with siblings (e.g., works with 'scrape_images'). For a mutation tool, this is inadequate.

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 the parameter 'outputDir' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying a default location (though not explicitly stated). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles 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 '清理所有下载的图片文件' clearly states the action (clean/delete) and target resource (downloaded image files). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cleanup_texts' (different resource) and 'list_images' (different action). However, it doesn't specify the scope beyond 'all' or mention the optional directory parameter, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after scraping), exclusions (e.g., avoid if images are needed), or relationships to siblings like 'scrape_images' (which might create the files to clean). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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