Index up to 10 pages from seed onion addresses and same-host links while respecting robots.txt, enabling targeted crawling of dark web content for research and monitoring.
Index up to 10 pages from seed onions and same-host links, respecting robots.txt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seeds | Yes | ||
| max_pages | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and open-world scope, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond them: link-following is restricted to same-host links and robots.txt is honored, which tells the agent this is a bounded, polite crawl rather than an unbounded spider.
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?
One sentence, zero filler, with the scope and the robots.txt constraint front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, page cap, and robots compliance. It is silent on indexing semantics (does it overwrite or append to an existing index?), rate limits, and error behavior when a seed is unreachable — gaps that matter for an open-world crawler.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the two parameters. It loosely maps 'seed onions' to seeds and 'up to 10 pages' to max_pages, but never states that seeds is an array of .onion addresses, and the stated 10-page cap conflicts with a max_pages default of 5, leaving the agent unsure which bound actually applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Index/crawl), the resource (onion pages), and the scope (seed onions plus same-host links, capped at 10 pages). It is clearly distinguishable from fetch_onion and search_onion in spirit, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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 implies the tool builds/updates an index rather than retrieving a page, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with fetch_onion (single page) or search_onion (query the index). An agent must infer the routing decision from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.