crw-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'crawling' and 'reading its sitemap,' implying discovery operations, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or potential side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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: 'Discover URLs on a website by crawling and/or reading its sitemap.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's complexity (involving crawling and sitemap reading), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like rate limits, permissions, or what the discovered URLs output looks like. For a discovery tool with potential side effects, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters ('maxDepth', 'url', 'useSitemap') with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'maxDepth' interacts with crawling or what 'useSitemap' entails. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Discover URLs on a website by crawling and/or reading its sitemap.' It specifies the verb ('discover') and resource ('URLs on a website'), and mentions two methods ('crawling' and 'reading its sitemap'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crw_crawl' or 'crw_scrape', which likely have overlapping or related functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'crw_crawl' or 'crw_scrape', nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is preferred or excluded. Without such context, an AI agent might struggle to choose between these tools effectively.

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