Get the URL: fetch a page and return its content as text.
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": {
"web": "<web>"
},
"name": "get_url"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| web | Yes | Parameter: web |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only notes that content comes back as text. It says nothing about JavaScript rendering, redirects, size/timeout limits, rate limiting, authentication or robots restrictions, or what happens on non-200 responses.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the 'Get the URL:' prefix restates the tool name rather than adding information. Brevity here reads as under-specification rather than economy.
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 network-fetch tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and a crowded sibling set, the description leaves out essentially all operational context. An agent can form the intent but not predict limits, failures, or return shape.
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?
Schema coverage is nominally 100%, but the schema text is vacuous ('Parameter: web'), so the description is what tells the agent this is the page to fetch. It still never clarifies whether 'web' expects a full URL, a bare domain, or a query, which is a real ambiguity given the opaque parameter name.
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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch a page and return its content as text. That is enough to know it is an HTTP fetch-to-text tool. It does not distinguish itself from the many similar siblings (crawl, scrape, geturl, analyze_url, meta_scrape, read), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one applies.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative despite an extremely crowded sibling set of fetching/scraping tools. The agent must infer the selection rule entirely on its own.
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.