ScorpTech x402 API

Schema Org Extract

schema_org_extract

Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract all schema.org structured data from a public page (SSRF-safe fetch) or HTML: JSON-LD (including @graph), microdata (nested itemscope / itemref) and RDFa Lite, normalised to typed items, plus a per-type summary with key facts (product price / currency / availability / rating, article headline / author / dates, breadcrumbs, FAQ questions, events, organisation, recipe) and missing-property warnings for Google rich results. Price: $0.003 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/schema-org-extract

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "schema_org_extract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`full`	No	Include the full normalised items (false = summary only)
`html`	No
`formats`	No	Restrict to these syntaxes (default all)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: SSRF-safe fetching, normalization to typed items, per-type summaries with key facts, missing-property warnings, and x402 pricing. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 front-loads the core purpose and every clause carries relevant information, including output shape, supported formats, and payment model. It is dense as a single long sentence, which slightly reduces readability, but there is little wasted text.

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?

With no output schema and moderate parameter coverage, the description does the necessary work by explaining the normalized output, per-type summary, key facts, and missing-property warnings. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to call it, though it could be more explicit about source parameter constraints.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%, so the description must add meaning for the undocumented parameters. It does so by clarifying that the tool accepts either a public page URL or raw HTML and by naming the supported structured-data formats. The 'full' parameter is already described in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 gives a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('schema.org structured data') and names the exact syntaxes supported (JSON-LD, microdata, RDFa Lite). It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as opengraph, seo_audit, or html_tables, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the source options ('public page' or 'HTML') and the supported formats, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer the tool's purpose, but it must rely on context rather than explicit routing instructions.

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

All ScorpTech x402 API 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.

Resources

Need Help?