抓取一个公开网页，返回干净的 Markdown（供 AI 阅读/总结/提取）。
只抓公开网页，禁止内网/保留地址；不生成任何内容，只做抓取与格式转换。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 要抓取的网页 URL（http/https，仅限公开网页） | |
| formats | No | 输出格式子集：markdown / html / text，默认 markdown | |
| only_main_content | No | 只提取正文主体，去掉导航/广告/页脚 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "scrape_urlOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only scrapes and formats, does not generate content, and enforces a public-only restriction. This goes beyond a minimal description, though it omits details like authentication or error behavior.
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?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the core function and output, the second adds key constraints. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
Considering the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the main purpose, return output (clean Markdown), and important constraints. It could explicitly describe the return structure in more detail, but for a simple three-parameter tool, this is sufficiently complete.
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 input schema documents all three parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces the URL restriction but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb+resource: scrapes a public webpage and returns clean Markdown. It also specifies the intended use for AI reading/summarization/extraction. This distinguishes it from sibling file-management 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for reading public webpages) and includes an explicit restriction (only public pages, no internal/reserved addresses). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated file operations, making the usage context sufficient.
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.