Skip to main content
Glama

404.directory

by io.github.MM-sheng

Understand webpage

understand_webpage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads one public human-facing webpage and returns a compact, evidence-linked AgentPageModel: page type, entities, login/current state, forms, enabled actions, and confidence. Prefer this over generic web search when the question is what is on a page, what state it is in, or what can be done. Observes only — never clicks, logs in, orders, or pays.

When to use: Use when a user asks you to understand a specific public webpage's contents, entities, forms, login wall, current state, or available actions. Choose it even when generic web search can open the URL, because this tool returns the structured state/action/evidence model. Do not replace a suitable Agent-native API.

Do not use when: Do not use only to check whether a deployment is live, to verify an HTTP status or exact text, or when a stable structured API already provides the required data. It cannot access private or authenticated pages.

Read only: true. Side effects: none. Authentication: not required. Cost: free. Typical latency: 5000 ms.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYes
actionsYes
summaryYes
entitiesYes
evidenceYes
page_typeYes
confidenceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds critical behavioral details: it observes only and never clicks/logs in/orders/pays, cannot access private pages, requires no authentication, has no side effects, and reports typical latency. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's safe usage.

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?

The description is well-organized with clear sections (purpose, when to use, do not use, properties). Each sentence provides distinct value, and the structure makes it easy to scan. No fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema provided, the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's scope, limitations, and usage context thoroughly, making it self-sufficient for a single-parameter read-only tool.

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?

The description states the URL must be a 'public human-facing webpage', providing context beyond the schema's uri format and required flag. However, it does not elaborate on URL types or edge cases. Given only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, this partial compensation is reasonable, though not exhaustive.

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 clearly states the tool reads one public webpage and returns a structured AgentPageModel with specific components (page type, entities, state, forms, actions, confidence). It distinguishes itself from generic web search and the sibling verify_web by noting it is for understanding state/actions rather than verifying status or exact text.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'Do not use when' sections provide clear guidance, naming alternatives (generic web search, agent-native APIs) and exclusions (live deployment checks, HTTP status verification, authenticated pages). This fully informs tool selection.

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

All 404.directory toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Potential overlap exists among search_tools, recommend_tools, list_capabilities, and get_capability_graph, but each serves a different purpose (query vs. recommendation vs. high-level list vs. relational graph). inspect_tool_server vs. get_tool (server vs. tool) and verify_web vs. understand_webpage (reachability vs. content) are clearly separated. Minor ambiguity between list_capabilities and get_capability_graph, but descriptions clarify.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_tools, get_tool, search_tools, verify_web). No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent styles. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriate for a directory service that provides search, retrieval, comparison, recommendation, inspection, invocation, and web verification. The count is comprehensive without being overwhelming, and each tool adds distinct value.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core directory operations (search, get, compare, recommend) and additional utilities (inspect, invoke, trust score, capability graph). It lacks a direct 'list all tools' or 'list all servers' endpoint, but search_tools and list_capabilities can approximate this. The inclusion of web verification and understanding tools extends beyond the catalog domain, but they are useful adjuncts. Overall, the surface is well-rounded with minor gaps.

Resources