Extract content from any URL as Markdown or HTML. Cost: fast 1 credit, standard 2 credits, thorough 5 credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to scrape. | |
| mode | No | Mode: fast (Raw HTTP, no JS. <1s), standard (Full JS rendering. 2-5s), thorough (Anti-bot proxies + JS rendering. 10-30s). | |
| output | No | Content format. | markdown |
| timeout | No | Seconds the page may take to load (up to 55). | |
| wait_for | No | CSS selector to wait for (standard and thorough modes). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses credit costs per mode, which is nontrivial behavioral context, but it omits other important traits such as read-only safety, rate limits, authentication requirements, and failure behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the cost detail follows immediately.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete when combined with the fully documented schema. It states output formats and costs, though it could say more about return structure and when to prefer this tool over siblings.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context by mapping modes to credit costs, though it does not cover every parameter detail.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Extract content from any URL as Markdown or HTML.' This is clear and not tautological, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as screenshot, site-intel, or search.
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?
It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like screenshot, search, or site-intel. The cost information helps choose a mode, but not whether to choose this tool at all.
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.