Web Scraper MCP Server

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 only states what the tool does ('get crawler status information') without describing traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), what the output format might be (e.g., JSON, text), if it requires authentication, or if it has side effects (e.g., logging). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 ('获取爬虫状态信息') that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, 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 moderate complexity (involves status retrieval), no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that suggest a scraping context, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' entails (e.g., active jobs, errors, metrics), how results are returned, or how it fits with tools like 'scrape_images'. For a tool in this environment, more context is needed to ensure proper 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% coverage (outputDir described as '输出目录路径（可选）' - output directory path, optional), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the tool's overall purpose. With high schema coverage and only one optional parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the simplicity (0 required params) and clear schema justify a 4, as minimal additional semantics are needed.

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 '获取爬虫状态信息' (Get crawler status information) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('爬虫状态信息' - crawler status information), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_images' or 'list_texts' that might also retrieve status-like information, nor does it specify what aspects of 'status' are included (e.g., running state, progress, errors).

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., only after starting a scrape), exclusions (e.g., not for historical data), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'scrape_images' or 'cleanup_images'. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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