website-to-json
Server Details
Turn any webpage into structured JSON with CSS-selector schemas - strings select text, attributes
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
- Repository
- DataLeadsPRO/website-to-json
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- website-to-json
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clear from its name, making it unambiguous.
The single tool name 'website_to_json' follows a clear descriptive pattern, and there is no inconsistency since it is the only tool.
Having only one tool feels very thin for a server, but it may be appropriate if the sole purpose is converting websites to JSON. However, the scope is unclear from the minimal description, making it borderline.
The server only offers one operation, lacking additional functionality like batch processing, configuration options, or error handling. For a simple conversion task it might be sufficient, but the vague description makes it hard to assess full coverage.
Available Tools
1 toolwebsite_to_jsonCInspect
V1 Website To Json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| schema | No | ||
| maxTimeout | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention any side effects, network requests, or dependencies on external URLs. The description is too minimal to provide transparency about operational characteristics.
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 extremely short (five words), which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It does not provide enough information, so the brevity is not effective.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is grossly inadequate. It provides no information about expected inputs, behavior, or outputs. An agent has almost no basis to correctly invoke this 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The schema itself has generic types but no descriptions for 'url', 'schema', or 'maxTimeout'. The description fails to provide any semantic meaning beyond what the schema field names suggest.
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 title suggests converting a website to JSON, but the description is just 'V1 Website To Json', which is essentially a version label and tautology. It does not clearly state what the tool does, such as scraping or extracting structured data from a website. However, 'Website To Json' gives a basic idea of the purpose, so it is not entirely missing.
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 guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. No sibling tools are provided, and the description offers no context about intended use cases or limitations. This is a clear gap.
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 tool update
- First observed
website_to_json
Related MCP Connectors
Turn any website into structured JSON data matching your custom schema.
Fetch web pages and extract exactly the content you need. Select elements with CSS and retrieve co…
Fetch and extract data from any public web page, even JS-rendered or anti-bot protected
Structured web research tool for AI agents: search, fetch and shape web data into the JSON schema…
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables extracting precise data from web pages by parsing the DOM with CSS selectors and returning structured JSON, while also offering tools to inspect page structure, discover candidate selectors, and verify them without loading full pages into context.5-
- -licenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceExtract structured data from any website with a simple SDK call. No scraping code, no headless browsers - just prompt and get JSON.62-
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceStructured web extraction for AI agents. Pass any URL and a prompt, get clean JSON data back. Native MCP server with 100 free requests/month.3794 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to extract structured JSON data from web pages using presets or custom JSON schemas, with confidence scores and source snippets, paid per call via USDC on Base.-
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.