Convert HTML to clean Markdown. Strips scripts, styles, nav, ads, and comments. Converts headings, lists, links, images, code blocks. Ideal for preparing web content as LLM context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | HTML string to convert | |
| strip_links | No | Strip link URLs, keep text only (default: false) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markdown | No | ||
| markdown_length | No | ||
| original_length | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "input": "<h1>T</h1><p>a <strong>b</strong> <a href=\"https://x.com\">c</a></p><ul><li>i</li></ul>"
+ }
+]Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "markdown": {},
+ "markdown_length": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "original_length": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by naming exactly what is discarded (scripts, styles, nav, ads, comments) and what is preserved (headings, lists, links, images, code blocks) – the key fidelity trade-off an agent needs. Doesn't mention behavior on malformed HTML or whether output is lossy for tables, so not a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the operation, the strip/convert behavior, and the intended use case. Front-loaded and waste-free.
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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description's remaining burden is behavioral, and it covers stripping and conversion well. A note on handling invalid or empty input is the only meaningful gap.
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 100%, so both `input` and `strip_links` are already described in the schema. The description mentions link conversion but never references the `strip_links` option, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource pair ("Convert HTML to clean Markdown") plus an explicit direction of conversion, which cleanly separates it from reverse-direction siblings like strip_markdown, escape_html and unescape_html. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
"Ideal for preparing web content as LLM context" gives a concrete usage context that maps to siblings like build_rag_prompt and optimize_prompt_tokens. No when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.