Scrapes web pages into clean markdown ($0.001 USDC)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target public website URL to scrape into markdown |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | Page HTML title | |
| success | Yes | Scrape success flag | |
| markdown | Yes | Extracted page content in markdown format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Target public website URL to scrape into markdown"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "markdown": {
+ "description": "Extracted page content in markdown format",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "Scrape success flag",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Page HTML title",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success",
+ "markdown"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful cost context ($0.001 USDC), but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or handling of dynamic pages beyond what the annotations provide.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, output format, and cost with zero wasted words. The cost is placed at the end without disrupting readability.
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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains purpose, output format, and cost. The main gap is sibling routing against browser_scraper, which is more of a usage-guidelines concern.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single url parameter is already documented as the target public website URL. The description does not add syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema, so the 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?
States a specific verb (Scrapes), resource (web pages), and output format (clean markdown), so the agent knows what it does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling browser_scraper, which likely has overlapping functionality.
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?
No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool routing is provided. The sibling browser_scraper is especially relevant but unmentioned, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred.
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.