How well a stored parser is still working: success rate per field, mean coverage over the recent runs, and whether it now counts as decayed (i.e. the site probably changed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset_id | Yes | The preset id returned by save_parser_preset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it computes success rate, mean coverage, and a decayed flag, and even explains the practical meaning of decayed ('the site probably changed'). This goes beyond the structured 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, well-structured sentence that opens with the core purpose and then lists the specific metrics after a colon. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description conveys the essential output semantics: success rate per field, mean coverage, and decayed status. It does not specify exact return field names or the exact window for 'recent runs', but overall it gives an agent enough context to call the tool and interpret the result.
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 is fully documented at 100% coverage, with preset_id described as 'The preset id returned by save_parser_preset'. The tool description itself does not expand on the parameter, but because the schema already covers it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource (a stored parser preset) and the purpose (assessing how well it is still working). It names the specific output concepts—success rate per field, mean coverage, and decayed status—which distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like heal_parser_preset and save_parser_preset.
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 clear context for when this tool is relevant: checking whether a stored parser is still reliable or has decayed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the health/status framing is sufficient for an agent to infer its role among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: single scrape, batch scrape, crawl, search, dataset creation, parser lifecycle, proxy management, and SEO audit. Even the five status pollers are clearly differentiated by job type and their descriptions explicitly state which job they poll, so an agent can reliably select the right tool.
Most names follow a verb-first pattern (create_dataset, generate_parser, run_collector, save_parser_preset, whitelist_ip) and listing tools consistently use the 'list_' prefix. However, a few are noun-first (parser_preset_stats, proxy_locations, collector_run_status) and the status polling tool for collectors breaks the otherwise consistent '<job>_status' convention ('collector_run_status' instead of 'run_collector_status').
At 25 tools, the set is at the upper edge of the 'heavy' range. The tools all serve distinct functions, reflecting a broad platform covering scraping, crawling, search, datasets, parsers, proxies, and SEO, but the count borders on overwhelming for an agent, and some consolidation (e.g., a generic async job status endpoint) could reduce the surface.
The tool surface covers the core data-extraction lifecycle well: discovery (map, search), acquisition (scrape, batch, crawl), structured extraction (generate_parser, save_parser_preset, parser stats/heal), proxy management, and result aggregation (datasets, collectors). Notable gaps are the absence of any cancellation/abort mechanism for long-running async jobs and no way to delete a parser preset, but these are minor for most workflows.
