Amazap

Read webpage

read_webpage

Clean article Markdown. Use it when the page is long or cluttered. Skip it on a short or already clean page: the quote compares the tokens both ways and does not charge for that check. Savings are compared with the page's visible text, not its HTML. One all-in price (6 sats). Blocked calls are credited.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http or https page.
`meta`	No	Off by default. Set true to include finalUrl, canonical, byline, wordCount, fetchedAt, and totalLength. Title, url, markdown, and published are always returned. published is the page date, or null.
`mode`	No	article drops images, link URLs, citations and reference lists. full keeps them.	article
`max_sats`	No	Most this call may charge. Minimum 1. A higher total charges nothing.
`max_chars`	No	Optional cap on the Markdown. The maximum is 200000 characters. (minimum 500).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	approval_required, limit_exceeded, or insufficient_balance when the call stopped.
`which`	No	Which limit: per_call, per_day, per_session, per_hour_buys, per_minute_calls, or per_minute_sats.
`content`	No	Delivered text. Empty when the call did not deliver.
`message`	No
`order_id`	No	Order id after a charge. Null when nothing was charged.
`truncated`	No	True when the source was longer than content, or the page itself was cut.
`total_cost`	No	All-in price string.
`approval_url`	No	Page where the person approves this exact price.
`balance_sats`	No	Credit balance after the call, or null when it was not read.
`sats_charged`	No	Sats charged for this call. 0 when nothing was charged.
`total_length`	No	Characters before truncation. Larger than content_length when truncated is true.
`content_length`	No	Characters in content.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds pricing specifics ('One all-in price (6 sats)'), credit for blocked calls, and clarifies that savings compare against visible text, not HTML—all beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't explain rate limits or auth, so a 4 rather than 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and covers usage, cost, and comparison in five sentences without excessive verbosity. The opening fragment 'Clean article Markdown.' is slightly awkward but overall it is well-structured.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context for usage and pricing. It does not mention the mode parameter (article vs full) or max_chars/max_sats, but those are fully documented in the schema, so the description is nearly complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states the output as 'Clean article Markdown' but does not use a clear verb like 'fetch' or 'extract', though the tool name 'read_webpage' clarifies the action. It does not differentiate from siblings like read_pdf or read_feed, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when to use ('when the page is long or cluttered') and when not to use ('skip it on a short or already clean page'), and references the 'quote' check as a free alternative. This provides clear when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

All Amazap tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?