Skip to main content
Glama

page-markdown

page_markdown
Read-only

3 free MCP calls per day (all tools together), then $0.0025 USDC via x402 or card credits (paid in-band: params._meta["x402/payment"]). Page to Markdown: Convert a public web page to clean Markdown (title, headings, paragraphs, lists, links, code), scripts/nav/footer removed, max ~60k chars. robots.txt respected. When to use: Legacy converter. page-rag gives cleaner main-content Markdown plus chunks at the same price.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
noteNo
charsNo
titleNo
statusNo
sourcesNo
markdownNo
final_urlNo
truncatedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / description
      Previous value: -"Inferred from a real response captured on 2026-10-24; extra fields may appear, null-valued fields are untyped."New value: +"Inferred from a real response captured on 2026-10-26; extra fields may appear, null-valued fields are untyped."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "description": "Inferred from a real response captured on 2026-10-24; extra fields may appear, null-valued fields are untyped.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "chars": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "number",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "final_url": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "markdown": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "note": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "sources": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "properties": {
      +          "name": {
      +            "type": [
      +              "string",
      +              "null"
      +            ]
      +          },
      +          "url": {
      +            "type": [
      +              "string",
      +              "null"
      +            ]
      +          }
      +        },
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "status": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "number",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "title": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "truncated": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "boolean",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "url": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the operationally important facts: 3 free calls/day shared across tools, $0.0025 USDC via x402 or card credits, in-band payment parameter path, robots.txt compliance, and a ~60k character output cap. These are exactly the cost, quota and limit disclosures an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Content is dense and every clause carries information, but the billing boilerplate occupies the leading sentence ahead of the actual purpose, which delays the front-loaded answer to 'what does this do'. The purpose, limits and alternative are otherwise ordered sensibly in three compact sentences.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be described, and the description covers cost, quota, size cap, robots policy, content filtering and the sibling alternative. What is missing is failure behavior for non-public or blocked pages, a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is one parameter (url) with zero schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It adds the meaningful constraint that the page must be 'public', implying no authenticated or paywalled targets, but gives no URL format or normalization guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Convert a public web page to clean Markdown') and enumerates the retained content (title, headings, paragraphs, lists, links, code) plus what is stripped (scripts/nav/footer). It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by name, page_rag, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an explicit 'When to use' section that names the alternative (page_rag) and the reason to prefer it ('cleaner main-content Markdown plus chunks at the same price'), which effectively routes the agent away from this tool for most cases. It is slightly ambiguous whether any case remains where this tool is the right pick beyond 'legacy', which keeps it from a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources