toolvend - utility APIs for agents

extract

Fetch a web page and return structured content: title, meta/OpenGraph, canonical, headings, links, readable text (boilerplate stripped). Add ?render=true for JavaScript-rendered pages ($0.03). Paid per call: $0.01 ($0.03 Execute JavaScript with Cloudflare Browser Run before extracting content.) in USDC via x402.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "extract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Public HTTP(S) page URL to extract
`render`	No	Premium tier, charged more than the base price. true → $0.03: Execute JavaScript with Cloudflare Browser Run before extracting content.
`includeLinks`	No	Include outbound links (default true)
`maxTextChars`	No	Cap on extracted text length, default 20000

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedAug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses per-call pricing ($0.01), a premium tier ($0.03), the boilerplate-stripping behavior, and that rendering requires Cloudflare Browser Run. It stops short of error behavior, rate limits, redirect handling, or non-HTML responses.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is well front-loaded, but the pricing sentence is malformed — the render parameter's schema text appears to have been spliced into the middle of the cost statement, making the price for the base call ambiguous to read. Waste is low but the structure is muddled at exactly the point where precision matters.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields, so an agent knows what a successful call yields. The gaps are behavioral edge cases (failures, blocked pages, truncation signaling) rather than core call requirements.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description mostly restates the render parameter already documented in the schema. It does add that the base call is billed at $0.01 versus $0.03 with render, but says nothing about includeLinks or maxTextChars beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Fetch a web page and return structured content') and enumerates exactly what comes back (title, meta/OpenGraph, canonical, headings, links, readable text). This distinguishes it from siblings like url-inspect and text-clean without the agent needing to open 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (grab page content, optionally render JS) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to text-clean, url-inspect, or sitemap. The render flag's condition is the only real 'use this option when' statement.

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

All toolvend - utility APIs for agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?