Extract up to 200 headings with parent indices and skipped-level indicators. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| headings | 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 readOnly=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some non-annotation context: a 200-heading result cap, that output includes parent indices and skipped-level flags, and that no auth is needed. However, the FREE/no-key messaging is repeated redundantly, and idempotentHint=false is left unexplained.
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 correctly front-loaded in the first sentence, but two subsequent sentences restate the same free/no-key point, and 'Supply your task in input' adds confusion rather than value. Moderate waste for a short description.
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-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover safety. Still, the nested input object is undocumented anywhere and there is no usage context against a crowded html_* family, leaving gaps an agent would need to fill by trial.
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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does not. Worse, 'Supply your task in input' misdescribes the actual nested parameter (input.html, a raw HTML string, max 100000), which could mislead an agent about what to pass.
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 (Extract) and resource (headings), plus concrete scope details (up to 200, parent indices, skipped-level indicators) that distinguish it from the html_links/html_tables/html_metadata siblings. It never names an alternative explicitly, but the resource noun is unambiguous enough to route correctly.
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 when-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling extractors (html_main_text, html_metadata, html_tables, etc.). 'FREE during validation' and 'No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed' are pricing/auth notes, not usage direction, and 'Supply your task in input' is too generic to guide selection.
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.