Describe up to 30 forms and their controls without returning field values or submitting anything. FREE during validation. No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed. Supply your task in input. Existing source and input limits apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forms | Yes | ||
| scope | Yes | ||
| truncated | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "minimum": 0,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / requestIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / descriptionPrevious value: -"Explicit maximum new debit; 0 means recovery only."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / maximumRemoved value: -999999999999Input schema / properties / requestId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Persist the ID returned by agent_utilities_prepare. Reuse after uncertainty."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / requestId / patternRemoved value: -"^\\d{13}_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{16,80}$"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "input",
- "requestId",
- "maxPriceMicroUsd"
-]New value: +[
+ "input"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: it will not return field values, will not submit forms, caps output at 30 forms, needs no auth/credits, and implies existing source/input limits apply. These are meaningful operational traits, though the limits are left vague.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but 'No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed' largely restates 'FREE during validation', and 'Supply your task in input' is confusing filler rather than useful information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a tool whose sole input is a nested HTML/baseUrl object, the description never describes that input structure and only gestures at 'limits', leaving a real gap for correct invocation.
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 0% and the single parameter is a nested object (html, baseUrl with a 100000 maxLength). The description only says 'Supply your task in input', which mislabels the payload as a 'task' and never explains the html content or baseUrl purpose, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource ('Describe up to 30 forms and their controls') and even defines scope by clarifying it does not return field values or submit. It is easy to tell apart from html_links/html_tables by resource, but no sibling is named explicitly, 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?
There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance versus the many other html_* extraction tools. The only contextual cue is cost ('FREE during validation. No key, credits, wallet...'), which is about expense, not tool selection, and 'Supply your task in input' gives no actionable routing guidance.
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.