scrape_companyCrawl a company website, including homepage, contact, about, and imprint pages, to collect published emails, phone numbers, and social links.
Crawl one company website (homepage + contact/about/imprint pages) for published contacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | ||
| url_or_domain | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully bounds the crawl to homepage plus contact/about/imprint pages and limits output to 'published contacts,' but it does not disclose operational traits such as crawling limits, failure behavior, rate limiting, or robots/policy handling.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It efficiently communicates the action, scope, and target output.
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?
The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description adequately covers the primary crawl scope. However, it leaves the optional region parameter completely undocumented and lacks operational context for a tool that crawls external websites.
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%, so the description should explain parameters, but it only indirectly implies the required website input through 'one company website.' The optional 'region' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its meaning and effect unclear.
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 states a specific verb (Crawl), a specific resource (one company website), and the exact page scope (homepage + contact/about/imprint), plus the output target (published contacts). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as find_leads.
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 phrase 'one company website' implies this tool is for a known company URL/domain rather than broad discovery, which gives some usage context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use rules, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives like find_leads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.