Scrappey MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks session activity but doesn't describe what 'active' means (e.g., browser session status, timeout behavior), response format (e.g., boolean, status details), error handling, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with session management.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple check operation, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'active' entails, the return value (e.g., true/false, status object), or error cases (e.g., invalid session ID). For a session management tool with no structured output, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required 'session' parameter as a session ID to check. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 as checking if a specific session is active, using the verb 'check' and specifying the resource 'session'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scrappey_list_sessions' (which lists sessions) and 'scrappey_destroy_session' (which destroys sessions), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'scrappey_browser_action' or 'scrappey_request'.

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 valid session ID), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'scrappey_list_sessions' (which might be used to get session IDs first). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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