Keenable Web Search

fetch_page_content

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch and extract content from a web page. Returns the page content in markdown format.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The URL to fetch. Example: "https://example.com"
`live`	No	Fetch live content. Defaults to false.
`prompt`	No	Optional extraction instruction. When set, an LLM reads the fetched page and the returned content is only the output for this instruction instead of the full page. Example: "List all pricing tiers with their monthly prices".
`max_chars`	No	Maximum number of characters of content to return. Longer content is truncated. Defaults to 50000 when omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / prompt

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional extraction instruction. When set, an LLM reads the fetched page and the returned content is only the output for this instruction instead of the full page. Example: \"List all pricing tiers with their monthly prices\".",
+  "maxLength": 2000,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJun 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / live

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Fetch live content. Defaults to false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedJun 18, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return format (markdown), which is not in the annotations. It does not mention caching/live behavior or LLM extraction, but those are documented in the input schema. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second states the output format. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description provides the essential context: purpose and output format. Annotations and schema handle safety and parameter details. It does not explain potential caching behavior or edge cases, but these are not critical for a read-only fetch tool and are partially covered by the 'live' parameter description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters having descriptive text. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs ('Fetch and extract') and identifies the resource ('content from a web page'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'search_web_pages' (search vs. fetch specific page). It also mentions the output format (markdown), which further clarifies purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: you would use this tool when you have a specific URL and want its content. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_web_pages or provide exclusions/alternatives. The usage context is clear but not explicitly differentiated from the sibling tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Keenable Web Search tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_web_pages retrieves search results and snippets, while fetch_page_content retrieves full content from a specific page. An agent would not struggle to decide which tool to use.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow the verb_noun pattern: search_web_pages and fetch_page_content. The naming is consistent, descriptive, and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the surface is thin and barely covers the full intended workflow. The pair is reasonable for search-and-fetch, but the count is at the borderline of being too minimal.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the core web search lifecycle: discover pages via search results with snippets, then fetch full page content when needed. The provided filters and modes make the surface complete for a web search tool.

Resources

Need Help?