Skip to main content
Glama

Geonode Scraper API

Server Details

Extract web pages, crawl and map sites, search the web. Extract needs no key; other tools need one.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership by verifying the domain or GitHub account it belongs to. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation4/5

With only one tool there is no risk of selecting the wrong tool, so disambiguation is trivially strong. However, the single 'extract' tool internally blends synchronous, asynchronous, JS-rendering, and proxied modes, which adds conceptual ambiguity within the tool itself.

Naming Consistency4/5

A single tool named 'extract' is a clean, descriptive verb and cannot violate any naming pattern. There is simply no second name to compare against, so consistency can only be judged as adequate rather than exemplary.

Tool Count2/5

One tool is too thin for the surface this server advertises: the description references crawl, map, search, batch, and job history capabilities that are not exposed as tools. A single overloaded endpoint forces agents to encode many behaviors through flags rather than distinct operations.

Completeness2/5

The async path is a dead end: extract returns a job ID to be polled 'with the job tool', but no such tool exists in this set. Crawl, map, search, and batch operations mentioned in the description are also absent, leaving significant gaps for a scraper API.

Available Tools

1 tool
extractExtract a web pageA
Read-only
Inspect

Extract content from a web page. Supports HTML and Markdown output formats, optional JavaScript rendering via headless browser, proxy geo-targeting, custom HTTP headers, and explicit browser wait controls via the wait_config object. Can run synchronously (returns content immediately) or asynchronously (returns a job ID that can be polled with the 'job' tool). Use 'render_js=true' for pages that require JavaScript to load their content; supplying wait_config also enables browser rendering automatically. Omit wait_config or set it to null to keep the adaptive browser settle path; send {} or concrete values to opt into explicit mode. Anonymous use (no API key) is synchronous only, without JavaScript rendering or custom headers other than Accept-Language, and limited to a small per-client rate and daily volume. An API key, sent as the X-Api-Key header, removes these limits and unlocks crawl, map, search, batch and job history: https://geonode.com/pricing?utm_source=mcp-anon&utm_medium=mcp&utm_campaign=keyless-access

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
extract_requestYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: anonymous use is sync-only with no JS or custom headers beyond Accept-Language, rate/daily-volume limited, and keyed use via X-Api-Key unlocks crawl/map/search/batch/job history. It also discloses the render_js=false + wait_config rejection ambiguity rule, which an agent must know to avoid malformed calls.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then capability, then mode, then auth caveats — a sensible information hierarchy with dense, high-value sentences. The main drag is the pricing link carrying utm tracking parameters, which is promotional rather than instructive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and a nested request object, the description covers access modes, failure/rejection conditions, and what an async call returns (a job ID). It does not describe the shape of the returned content (e.g., how multiple requested formats are surfaced), which is the one remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load: it explains api_key's effect and transport (X-Api-Key header), render_js/wait_config interaction (wait_config auto-enables rendering, conflicting explicit false is rejected), and processing_mode's sync-vs-async return shape. It doesn't document the top-level parameter names explicitly, but the nested $defs carry unusually detailed field docs, so the gap is small.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Extract content from a web page') and immediately enumerates the capability surface (HTML/Markdown output, JS rendering, proxy geo-targeting, custom headers, wait controls, sync vs async). The scope is unambiguous even without sibling tools to contrast against.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit selection rules: use render_js=true for JS-dependent pages, omit/null wait_config to keep the adaptive settle path, send {} or concrete values for explicit mode, and use async when you want a pollable job. It also names the alternative consumer of async results (the 'job' tool) and states the anonymous-vs-key tradeoff.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedextract

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Web content extraction for AI agents. 10 tools: scrape, crawl, map, batch, extract, summarize, diff, brand, search, research. Uses TLS fingerprinting to bypass anti-bot without a headless browser. Outputs LLM-optimized markdown with 67% fewer tokens than raw HTML.
    10
    2,381
    AGPL 3.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides eight tools for web search, content extraction, screenshots, PDFs, JavaScript execution, crawling, and Wayback Machine snapshots and archiving.
    3 npm
    1
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Read any web page and search the web for free. Routes each page across 28 web tools cheapest first (plain HTTP, Jina Reader, Chromium, stealth browsers) and checks it's the page you asked for before returning it. Paid tools stay off unless you add keys.
    3,554 PyPI
    75
    Apache 2.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables clients to read web pages and PDFs as markdown, capture screenshots, search the web and academic sources, rerank/deduplicate content, and extract PDF elements. Supports API-key access, tool filtering, and response token limits.
    Apache 2.0
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources