Extract source table cells without expanding spans. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| tables | Yes | ||
| spanPolicy | 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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavior beyond them: spans are not expanded, no key/credits/wallet are required, and source/input limits apply. The limits reference is vague but the span-handling and auth-free notes are genuinely useful.
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?
Short and front-loaded with the purpose, which is good. But two of the sentences ('FREE during validation', 'No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed') are near-duplicative commercial filler that dilute the operational content.
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 not be described, and the tool is structurally simple (one nested input). However, the meaning of the input parameter is left unclear, which is a real gap for a 0%-coverage schema.
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 nested parameter (input.html) is not explained. Worse, the description calls it 'Supply your task in input', which is misleading for what is actually HTML source content, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap and may confuse the agent.
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 source table cells', placing it clearly within the html_* extraction family. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool (e.g. html_main_text, html_links), so differentiation is by subject matter alone rather than explicit routing.
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-to-use guidance and no named alternative. 'Supply your task in input' is a delivery instruction rather than usage context, and the pricing note ('FREE during validation') is commercial, not operational, 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.