render_webpage
Browser-render a public JavaScript-heavy webpage or URL, then return clean text, Markdown, links, and metadata.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No |
SmartFetch
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool uses a browser, targets public pages, and returns text, Markdown, links, and metadata. Yet it does not mention latency, potential failures on heavy pages, output truncation behavior, or link handling beyond returning them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence front-loads the method, target, and outputs. Every phrase contributes to selection or invocation understanding, with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain both return values and invocation constraints. It lists the key return types and the public-JS-heavy scope, but it omits max_chars semantics and any caveats about rendering failures or performance. This is enough for a simple call but not fully robust.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enriches the meaning of 'url' by specifying 'public JavaScript-heavy webpage or URL,' but it says nothing about 'max_chars' or how the returned content is capped. One of two parameters remains semantically under-explained.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('browser-render') with a specific resource ('public JavaScript-heavy webpage or URL') and states the deliverables: clean text, Markdown, links, and metadata. The 'JavaScript-heavy' qualifier differentiates it from siblings that likely fetch static or raw content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies this tool is for JavaScript-heavy pages where ordinary fetching/extraction would be insufficient. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5
All four tools describe essentially the same operation: fetching or extracting a webpage and returning clean text/Markdown. fetch_webpage explicitly includes browser rendering and Markdown output, so it overlaps with every other tool and leaves no clear basis for selecting among them.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most names follow a verb-first snake_case pattern (fetch_webpage, render_webpage, extract_webpage_text), but webpage_to_markdown breaks the pattern by using a noun_to_noun form. The naming is readable but not fully consistent.
Tool Count2/5
Four tools is not inherently excessive, but the set is highly redundant for a narrow fetch/extract purpose; one comprehensive tool or at most a two-tool split would be more appropriate. The current count inflates the surface without adding distinct capabilities.
Completeness3/5
The core job of fetching and converting public webpages to text/Markdown is covered, including browser rendering for JavaScript-heavy pages. However, the surface is so overlapping that it lacks meaningful capability stages or distinct output modes beyond the bundled text/Markdown/metadata payload.