Web Scraper MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states '清理' (clean up), which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify what 'clean up' entails (e.g., deletion, archiving, or moving files), whether it's reversible, or any permissions/rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies or removes files.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy 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 (implied by 'clean up'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like what 'clean up' does to files, any confirmation prompts, or error handling. The simplicity of the tool (1 optional parameter) doesn't compensate for these gaps in safety and outcome clarity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'outputDir' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the default path './scraped-text' or typical use cases for overriding it). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 action ('清理' meaning 'clean up') and the resource ('所有提取的文本文件' meaning 'all extracted text files'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cleanup_images' or 'list_texts', which would require mentioning it's specifically for text files (not images) and that it performs cleanup (not listing).

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., after scraping), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., if you need to preserve files), or explicit alternatives among siblings like 'list_texts' for viewing files or 'cleanup_images' for image cleanup.

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