Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gpsem

gpsem

by puples
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Lister les crawls

listScreamingFrogCrawls
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all Screaming Frog crawls for a site by providing its ID. Access imported crawl data to review SEO audit history.

Instructions

Lister les crawls — Crawls importés du site. — (GET /sites/{siteId}/screaming-frog/crawls)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "siteId": "<siteId>"
    },
    "name": "listScreamingFrogCrawls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteIdYesID site encodé (hashid)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal context ('Crawls importés du site') but does not disclose any additional behavior like pagination, result size, or field details. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description provides some value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the HTTP method and resource path. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what a crawl contains or any pagination/filtering behavior, which could be useful for an agent expecting a list. However, for a simple read-only list operation, it is not severely incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with siteId described as 'ID site encodé (hashid)'. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Lister' (list) and the resource 'crawls', and clarifies they are imported from the site. The HTTP method and path reinforce the resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like listScreamingFrogActions and getScreamingFrogDashboard.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name suggests it lists crawls, there is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to sibling list tools, leaving the agent to infer its scope.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools