Scrappey 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 supported actions but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify error handling (e.g., what happens if an action fails), performance characteristics (e.g., timeouts, rate limits), authentication needs, or side effects (e.g., whether actions are reversible). The list of actions is informative but insufficient for a tool with 32 parameters and complex automation capabilities.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that states the core purpose and enumerates key actions. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 high complexity (32 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks information on output format, error responses, session dependencies, and behavioral constraints. For a powerful automation tool with many configuration options, the description should provide more context about how actions are executed, what results to expect, and common pitfalls.

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 32 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing action types (e.g., 'clicking, typing, scrolling') but doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Execute browser automation actions in a session' with a list of supported actions (clicking, typing, etc.). It specifies the verb ('execute') and resource ('browser automation actions'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scrappey_request or scrappey_screenshot, which might have overlapping functionality.

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., needing a session from scrappey_create_session), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like scrappey_request (for simpler requests) or scrappey_screenshot (for just screenshots). Usage is implied by the action list but not explicitly defined.

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