Web Scraper MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation by using '列出' (list), but doesn't disclose format of returned information, pagination, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description adds little beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential function.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what '图片信息' (image information) includes (e.g., filenames, sizes, metadata), how results are structured, or any limitations. Given the context of sibling tools for scraping and cleanup, more guidance on this tool's role would be valuable.

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 one optional parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting for 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 ('列出' - list) and resource ('所有已下载的图片信息' - all downloaded image information), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_texts' beyond the resource type, nor does it specify if this includes metadata vs. just filenames.

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 like 'scrape_images' (for downloading) or 'cleanup_images' (for deletion). It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether images need to be downloaded first, or context for when listing is appropriate versus other operations.

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