Extract up to 200 links and resolve HTTP(S) destinations against the supplied page URL. FREE during validation. No key, credits or wallet. Existing source and input limits apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | ||
| requestId | No | Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode. | |
| maxPriceMicroUsd | No | Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| links | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| truncated | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: a hard 200-link ceiling, HTTP(S) destination resolution, free-mode behavior with no key/credits, and a warning that source and input limits apply. It stops short of describing ordering or dedup behavior, which matters given idempotentHint=false.
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?
Four short, front-loaded sentences with the core action first. The pricing statements ('FREE during validation' and 'No key, credits or wallet') overlap slightly but are terse enough to be acceptable.
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?
With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers action, resolution target, result cap, cost model and limit caveats. The main remaining gap is disambiguation from neighboring link/HTML tools, which is minor for a self-contained extractor.
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 coverage is 67%, so the schema documents most fields; the description nonetheless adds meaning by tying link resolution to 'the supplied page URL' (the baseUrl parameter) and hinting at input limits for the html field. It doesn't explain the two legacy fields or the maxLength constraints, so it neither fully compensates nor is redundant.
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 ('Extract ... links') plus a resolving behavior against the supplied page URL, and caps scope at 200. An agent can tell it extracts links from HTML rather than images, forms or tables. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like web_link_shortlist or agent_utilities_link_shortlist_preview.
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?
Usage is only implied: it operates on supplied HTML and returns links, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling for link shortlisting versus raw extraction. The pricing note ('FREE during validation') is contextual rather than a usage rule.
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.