Submit an accepted URL for re-crawling exactly once. Avoid duplicate submissions with idempotency reconciliation.
Submit one accepted URL exactly once. Uncertain POSTs are reconciled without retransmission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| host_id | Yes | ||
| approval_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses idempotent behavior ('Uncertain POSTs are reconciled without retransmission') and the submit-once semantics, but it does not mention side effects, error behavior, quota implications, or required authentication/authorization beyond what might be implied by host_id.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using two short sentences to convey the core action and idempotency guarantee. No unnecessary words are present.
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 description omits critical context such as the need to call prepare_recrawl first, the meaning of approval_id, the role of reconcile_action, quota constraints, and what the response contains. It is too sparse to fully guide an agent through the recrawl application flow.
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?
All four parameters (url, host_id, approval_id, idempotency_key) are left completely undocumented in the description. The description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage; for example, it never explains what approval_id is or how idempotency_key should be generated.
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 action ('Submit one accepted URL exactly once') and highlights idempotency, which distinguishes it from related tools like prepare_recrawl or get_recrawl_task. However, 'accepted' is somewhat ambiguous without knowing the preceding approval step.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as webmaster_prepare_recrawl, webmaster_apply_sitemap, or webmaster_reconcile_action. The idempotency note hints at handling retries but does not clarify the overall workflow or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.