Scrappey MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool destroys a session to free resources, indicating a destructive action, but doesn't mention behavioral traits like whether destruction is irreversible, what happens to associated data, error conditions, or rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the operation's impact.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and benefit ('to free resources'). It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (destructive action with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't address return values, error handling, or resource implications. For a destructive tool, more context on outcomes or safety would improve completeness, but it meets a baseline level.

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 the single parameter 'session' documented as 'Session ID to destroy.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately defines the parameter without extra description 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 clearly states the action ('Destroy') and resource ('existing browser session in Scrappey'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scrappey_create_session' and 'scrappey_list_sessions' by focusing on termination rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'scrappey_session_active' which might check session status.

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 implies usage when needing to 'free resources,' suggesting it's for cleanup after session use. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., whether to destroy vs. keep sessions active for reuse) or provide explicit exclusions. The context is clear but lacks detailed guidance on timing or prerequisites.

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