I used the same url for two different postings.
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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful cost signal ($0.001 USDC) and the output format (clean markdown), but doesn't disclose failure behavior, rate limits, or other runtime traits.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler; the action, resource, output format, and cost are all front-loaded. Every segment earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with a full output schema and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only notable omission is guidance on when to prefer it over the similarly named browser_scraper sibling.
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 already fully documents the single 'url' parameter with 100% coverage. The tool description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the phrase 'into clean markdown', so it doesn't exceed the schema baseline.
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 the operation ('Scrapes'), the resource ('web pages'), and the output form ('clean markdown'), making it clear what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling browser_scraper, which is a similar scraping tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_scraper, render_screenshot, or pdf_extractor. The only implied context is that the target is a public website URL from the schema; there is no when/when-not or exclusion language.
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.