Extract and analyze all links from a webpage with filters for depth, limit, unique results, external domains, subdomains, and metadata.
Extract and analyze all links from a webpage with filtering options
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| depth | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| unique | No | ||
| external | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| store_data | No | ||
| subdomains | No | ||
| proxy_country | No | ||
| proxy_enabled | No | ||
| return_format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. It does not disclose that store_data writes to Spider Cloud, whether proxy_enabled incurs cost or latency, or any rate/limit behavior — all of which matter for an 11-parameter 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?
A single clean sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but for a tool with 11 parameters it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; the sentence has no follow-up detail to justify its brevity.
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 11-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool needs substantially more context than one sentence. Key behaviors — what 'analyze' means, how depth interacts with limit, what store_data persists, what return_format changes — are entirely absent.
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?
With 11 parameters and effectively no substantive description coverage, the description is the only place to add meaning, yet 'with filtering options' names none of the filters (depth, limit, unique, external, subdomains, proxy settings, return_format). The individual schema descriptions exist but are terse one-liners that do not convey interaction or defaults.
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+resource ('Extract and analyze all links from a webpage'), which is clearly distinguishable from spider_scrape, spider_crawl, and spider_search. The word 'analyze' is vaguer than 'extract,' but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus spider_scrape or spider_crawl, both of which also operate on a URL. 'With filtering options' hints at capability but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.