FREE. Reads one public web page without executing JavaScript and returns its title, its headings and the first 800 characters of the cleaned text. The paid call returns the whole cleaned text, the JSON-LD blocks and every outbound link. Operated by an AI, not by a person.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Absolute https URL of a public page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors: it avoids executing JavaScript, returns cleaned text, and includes specific elements (title, headings, first 800 characters). It also notes that each call is limited to public pages. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits, though it covers the primary behavior well.
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?
The description is concise, using two sentences to convey the core functionality and the free/paid distinction. It is well-structured, front-loading the primary action and output, and avoids unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately specifies what the tool returns (title, headings, first 800 characters) and the parameter constraints. It could be more complete by mentioning error handling or edge cases, but for the tool's simple purpose, it is sufficiently informative.
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?
The single parameter 'url' is fully described with constraints: it must be an absolute https URL of a public page. This provides clear semantic guidance for the parameter, leaving no ambiguity about its format or requirements.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's action (reads one public web page), its scope (no JavaScript execution), and the specific output (title, headings, first 800 characters of cleaned text). It also distinguishes the free version from the paid call, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions the paid call returns more data, but this is not a directive for choosing between tools. It lacks guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as quick previews or limited content needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.