crawl_courseCrawl a Ninova course URL to inventory its pages and downloadable resources. Set depth, page, and download limits to map course content.
Inventory pages and downloadable resources inside a Ninova course tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| course_url | Yes | ||
| include_downloads | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"crawl_courseDictOutput"New value: +"crawl_courseOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, giving the safety profile for free. The description adds that the crawl inventories pages plus downloadable resources, but says nothing about rate limits, depth/page caps, or what happens at traversal boundaries, so it only modestly exceeds the annotations.
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 front-loaded sentence with no padding; the core scope is stated immediately. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than reaching maximal usefulness.
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 means return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a crawl tool with depth, page-count, and download-toggle parameters, the description leaves parameter behavior and usage context unexplained, so it is only adequate.
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% across four parameters (max_depth, max_pages, course_url, include_downloads), so the schema documents none of them and the description must compensate. It only loosely gestures at 'downloadable resources' (related to include_downloads) and never explains depth, page limits, or the required URL's expected form.
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 ('Inventory') and resource ('pages and downloadable resources') scoped to a 'Ninova course tree', which is clearer than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (read_page, snapshot_page, download_resource), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like read_page, snapshot_page, or download_resource. The agent must infer that this is a bulk-discovery tool versus the single-item siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.