foundrynet-scrape
Server Details
x402-gated web extraction gateway. Tools: extract, extract_batch.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for single page extraction and one for batch processing. No ambiguity.
Both tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'extract' and 'extract_batch'. Perfectly consistent.
Only 2 tools is minimal for a scraping server. While it may suffice for a specific use case, a more comprehensive set would be expected.
The tools only cover extraction. Missing features like listing pages, filtering, or error handling, which are significant gaps for a scraping domain.
Available Tools
2 toolsextractBInspect
Extract a page's main content (text|markdown|json)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | page URL | |
| format | No | text | markdown | json | |
| api_key | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no disclosure of behavioral traits such as API key requirements, mutability, or safety. The description fails to convey any behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence with verb-first structure, no unnecessary words, effectively front-loaded.
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?
Without an output schema or detailed parameter explanations, the description leaves key aspects (e.g., api_key necessity, return format) unspecified.
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%; the description reiterates format options already in schema. It does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, missing explanation for 'api_key'.
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 action (extract), the resource (page's main content), and output format options, with sibling 'extract_batch' implying single-page extraction.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extract_batch', nor any prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
extract_batchCInspect
Batch-extract many pages (volume)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | page URLs (max 20) | |
| format | No | ||
| api_key | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'batch-extract many pages', omitting critical details such as required authentication (api_key), rate limits, success/failure behavior, or whether the tool is destructive. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
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 concise (4 words) and front-loaded. While brevity is good, it sacrifices necessary detail. Every word is functional but insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations.
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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or any constraints beyond those in the schema. An agent lacks crucial context for correct usage.
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 only 33% (only 'urls' has a description). The description adds no extra meaning to parameters; 'batch-extract' only reinforces that urls are multiple. The 'format' and 'api_key' parameters have no documentation in either schema or description, leaving the agent uninformed about acceptable values or usage.
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?
Description states 'Batch-extract many pages (volume)', clearly indicating it extracts multiple pages. The sibling tool 'extract' implies single-page extraction, so there is some distinction. However, the description is terse and lacks specificity about what 'many pages' means exactly.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'extract'. The name 'extract_batch' and the description imply batch usage for multiple pages, but no when-not conditions or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!