Fetch a URL, extract what's worth knowing, and store it. The twin analyses the page against your existing schema and reports what it found before confirming what was stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to fetch and analyse | |
| notes | No | Why you're ingesting this. Adds context to what gets stored. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / notes / descriptionPrevious value: -"Why you're ingesting this — adds context to what gets stored"New value: +"Why you're ingesting this. Adds context to what gets stored."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses a two-step process (analysis against existing schema, reporting findings before confirming storage) beyond annotations. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds valuable behavioral context.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant words. Highly concise and well-structured.
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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main process but lacks details on storage location, analysis outcomes, or confirmation format. Somewhat complete but could clarify what 'store' means.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it mentions extraction but no details on how notes affect storage.
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 action ('Fetch a URL, extract what's worth knowing, and store it') and resource (URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_document and add_knowledge by focusing on external web content ingestion.
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 use for web content but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like add_document or add_knowledge. No 'when not to use' or prerequisite conditions are stated.
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.