Scrappey MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the optional browser actions capability but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (likely, but not stated), what happens with sessions, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (image format, size). The description is minimal for a tool with 15 parameters and complex functionality.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each add value. First sentence states core functionality, second adds the key optional capability. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 complex tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (image data format? file? URL?), doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or practical constraints. The agent would need to infer too much from the parameter schema alone.

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 15 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying that 'browserActions' can be used before capturing. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, default behaviors, or practical usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Take a screenshot of a webpage' (specific verb+resource). It adds 'Optionally execute browser actions before capturing' which distinguishes it from basic screenshot tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scrappey_browser_action' which might handle browser actions separately.

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 sibling tools like 'scrappey_browser_action' (for actions without screenshot), 'scrappey_request' (for non-browser requests), or 'scrappey_create_session' (for session management). There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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