scraperapi-mcp-server

Tool Scores

• scrapeA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  While annotations establish read-only/non-destructive/idempotent safety profile, description adds substantial operational context: automatic handling of CAPTCHAs/IPs via proxy infrastructure, rate limiting constraints, API key authentication requirements, ~700KB image size rejection limit, and specific ToolError conditions (auth, rate limits, failures).

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  Description is well-structured with clear sections (When to use/When NOT to use/Args/Returns/Raises) and front-loaded purpose statement. However, it is verbose with redundancy between the second paragraph and the 'When to use' bullets (both describe text extraction and image downloading). The Args section largely mirrors the detailed schema descriptions already present in the $defs.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a complex tool with 8 parameters, external service dependencies, multiple output formats, and authentication requirements, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, all input parameters, return value formats (including specific behavior for images vs. text), and error conditions. Sibling tools are absent, so no alternative comparison is needed.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  Context signals indicate 0% schema coverage for the top-level 'params' object (which lacks a description field in the JSON schema). The Args section compensates by documenting all 8 nested parameters (url, render, country_code, etc.) with types, defaults, and value examples, effectively explaining the required input structure that the schema references but does not describe at the top level.

  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?

  Description opens with specific verb 'Scrape', identifies resource 'web page or image', references the external service 'ScraperAPI', and highlights key capability 'bypassing anti-bot protections'. This precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Contains explicit 'When to use' section listing 4 specific scenarios (text extraction, image downloads, geo-restricted content, structured data) and 'When NOT to use' section listing 3 exclusions (authenticated URLs, non-HTTP resources, unnecessary re-fetching due to rate limits). Provides clear boundaries for tool selection.

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