fetch_pageFetches an allowlisted public page as markdown/text: published blog posts (/blog/:slug), static pages (e.g. /agents, /api-docs, /about), and the agent discovery doc (/llms.txt).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Public path, e.g. /blog/how-to-read-a-13f-without-overreading-it, /agents, or /llms.txt. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| provenance | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'allowlisted' constraint and the output format (markdown/text), providing useful behavioral context beyond the 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?
One sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists examples. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Given the simple 1-parameter schema, strong annotations, and output schema, the description covers the tool's scope, constraints, and output format sufficiently. It is complete for a simple fetch tool.
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 schema fully documents the single 'path' parameter with examples. The description also lists path patterns like /blog/:slug, but this largely overlaps with the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.
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 states the tool fetches public pages, specifies the output format (markdown/text), and enumerates the types of allowlisted pages (blog posts, static pages, /llms.txt). This distinguishes it from the finance-focused sibling tools.
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 implies usage by enumerating specific page types and the 'allowlisted' constraint, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear and distinct from siblings.
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.