Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MWIE MCP Server

MWIE MCP Server

by tmolavi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

batch_process_urls

Process multiple URLs concurrently and return summarized SEO and GEO metrics to compare page performance and AI readiness.

Instructions

Process a batch of URLs concurrently and return summarized SEO/GEO metrics.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "batch_process_urls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYes
render_jsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says processing is concurrent but not whether the call blocks or returns a job handle (the sibling get_job_status hints at an async pattern), how per-URL failures are reported, or any batch size or rate limits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource ('batch of URLs') comes before the output claim. It is efficient, though there is little structure to speak of within one sentence.

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

Completeness2/5

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 needn't be described. However, for a concurrent batch tool with zero annotation coverage and an undelivered render_js flag, the missing execution model (async vs blocking), failure semantics, and batch limits leave real gaps an agent would need.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description hints that 'urls' is an array of targets, but adds nothing about size limits or duplicate handling, and never explains what render_js does or costs. Only one of the two parameters gets even implied meaning.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Process a batch of URLs') plus the output domain ('summarized SEO/GEO metrics'), which implicitly separates it from the single-URL siblings crawl_url and analyze_seo. It does not name a sibling explicitly or say what 'process' entails, so it falls short of 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'batch' implies the tool is the multi-URL alternative to crawl_url, but the description never states when to choose it over analyze_seo, analyze_geo, or a loop of crawl_url, nor any prerequisites. Usage is left to inference from the name and sibling list.

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