Fetch readable text from an approved public HTTPS host. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| method | Yes | ||
| status | 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 declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: the cost model (FREE during validation, no key/credits/wallet) and the host restriction (approved public HTTPS only). It does not explain what makes a host 'approved' or what the source limits are.
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 no filler; the cost statement leads. The telegraphic fragments are efficient, though they read as notes rather than a coherent spec.
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 free-tier behavior is covered. However, the two most consequential constraints for successful invocation ('approved host' and 'source/input limits') are left undefined for a nested, open-world fetch tool.
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%, and the one undocumented parameter is the required, nested 'url', whose semantics (allowed schemes, host restrictions, size limits) matter most. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states about the legacy ignored fields.
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 (fetch) and resource (readable text) plus a scoping constraint (approved public HTTPS host). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from text-extraction siblings like html_main_text or web_page_pack_fetch.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for selecting it over html_main_text or the other web fetch tools. 'Existing source and input limits apply' gestures at constraints without explaining them.
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.