Retrieve learned crawl knowledge for a host—winning reader, routes, moves, and recent failures—or global failures and full register when no host is set, so agents reuse wins and avoid retries.
What Scout has learned about a host: winning reader, reader order, routes (listing, detail_suffix, patterns), the moves that apply, recent failures. No host: recent failures everywhere and the whole register.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned content (winning reader, reader order, routes, moves, recent failures) and the no-host fallback behavior, but says nothing about read-only nature, side effects, or any limits, leaving gaps for a retrieval tool.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loading the with-host case before the no-host fallback, with no filler. Dense jargon slightly hurts readability but nothing is wasted.
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 low-complexity single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately sketches the payload but leaves return shape and safety profile undefined, and the undefined terminology prevents fully confident invocation.
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 0% for the lone 'host' parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining both the per-host result set and what happens when host is omitted ('recent failures everywhere and the whole register'). That meaningfully exceeds the silent schema.
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 conveys that this retrieves learned state about a host (readers, routes, moves, failures), which is a real purpose beyond the name. However it is saturated with unexplained domain jargon ('winning reader', 'the register', 'moves') and never distinguishes itself from siblings like scout, moves, recipes, or cache, so an agent cannot cleanly route to it over those.
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?
It does specify the two operating modes via the host argument ('with host' vs 'No host'), which is genuine conditional guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-to-avoid statement relative to the many sibling tools, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.