Opengraph io MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Extract') and endpoint ('OpenGraph's scrape endpoint'), but fails to describe critical traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the extraction returns (e.g., raw HTML, text content). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external URLs.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Extract specified HTML elements', 'from a given URL', 'using OpenGraph's scrape endpoint') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of web scraping (external interactions, potential errors) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use in a real-world context.

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 clear documentation for both parameters ('site' as a full URL and 'html_elements' as an array of selectors). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of selectors or URL formatting constraints, but the schema adequately covers the basics, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Extract') and resource ('specified HTML elements from a given URL'), with specific reference to 'OpenGraph's scrape endpoint' providing technical context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getOgData' or 'getOgScrapeData' by focusing on element extraction rather than general data or scrape operations, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getOgQuery' or 'getOgScrapeData'. The description implies usage for HTML element extraction from URLs, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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