APIVerve

URL to Markdown

URLtoMarkdown

Read-only

URL to Markdown: URL to Markdown converts any webpage URL into structured Markdown text. Each response delivers the page title, converted text, word count, and element counts, with paid plans adding optional link and image syntax. (Cost: 10 credits)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "URLtoMarkdown"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The URL of the webpage to convert to Markdown
`includeLinks`	No	Whether to include hyperlinks in the Markdown output
`includeImages`	No	Whether to include image references in the Markdown output

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`error`	No	Error message, null on success
`status`	No	"ok" on success

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the response payload shape and a 10-credit cost per call. It says nothing about failure modes, JS-rendered pages, or rate limits, so the added value is real but narrow.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the conversion purpose and follow with output and cost details; every clause carries information. Minor waste in repeating the tool name verbatim at the start ("URL to Markdown: URL to Markdown converts...").

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully, and it discloses the credit cost. For a network-facing scraping tool with an openWorldHint, however, it omits any mention of how unreachable, blocked, or dynamic pages are handled, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description does add one non-obvious fact, that includeLinks and includeImages are gated behind paid plans, but it does not restate or clarify the url parameter's accepted forms.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: converts a webpage URL into structured Markdown, and names the returned artifacts (title, text, word count, element counts). It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as WebsitetoText, HTMLtoText, or MarkdowntoHTML, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives, despite a crowded field of near-identical conversion tools. The only conditional hint is that link/image syntax requires a paid plan, which is a capability constraint rather than routing guidance.

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

All APIVerve tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.