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 mentions saving images locally but fails to describe critical traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, file formats supported, or whether it overwrites existing files. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 that front-loads the core action and outcome without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring key behavioral information, but it earns high marks for zero waste.

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 complexity of a web scraping tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits essential context such as return values, error conditions, performance constraints, and how it interacts with sibling tools, making it inadequate for reliable agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (url, outputDir, maxConcurrent) with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool processes images from a URL, which the schema's url description already covers, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('scrape images from a specified URL') and the outcome ('save to local'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scrape_text' or 'list_images' beyond the resource type (images vs. text), which prevents 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scrape_text' for text content or 'list_images' for listing without saving. It also lacks context about prerequisites, such as network access or file system permissions, leaving usage scenarios unclear.

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