Skip to main content
Glama

Tako: Fetch Contents

tako_contents
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the full content behind a url: a web page's text, or an exportable Tako card's data rows. Batch up to 10 urls in one call — each one is billed and fails on its own.

Fetch only cards that tako_search marked exportable: true. Rows bill per 1,000 delivered, so set max_rows when the recent rows are enough. If a page is long, such as a filing or an annual report, set query to get back only the passages that match.

Best for: reading one source in full — a page you need to quote, or the rows behind a card you need to compute over.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYesThe urls to fetch: a Tako card url or a web result url. One call for 8 urls costs the same as 8 separate calls and saves 7 round trips.
queryNoWeb pages only: return the passages around matches of this phrase instead of the whole page. The full page is always scanned, so no match means the phrase isn't there.
max_rowsNoTako cards only: how many rows to return. Omit it for the whole card, up to 2,000 rows. Every row delivered is billed, so lower it when the recent rows are enough.
max_charsNoWeb pages only: character cap on the extracted text. Inline fetches default to 100,000 per url, less across a batch. Raise it for a long document; `truncated` reports a cut.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usageYesWhat this request cost.
resultsYesOne per requested url, in order.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial non-obvious context: batching up to 10 with independent billing/failure, row-based billing, full-page scanning for query, and the `truncated` cut signal. This greatly exceeds what the annotations alone convey.

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?

Three tight paragraphs: what it does, cost/scope caveats, and best-fit use cases. Every sentence carries information, and the most important capability is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers operation, batching limits, billing behavior, exportable precondition, per-type parameter guidance, truncation reporting, and use-case fit. Combined with the detailed input schema and output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra selection guidance beyond the schema: use `query` for long documents, lower `max_rows` when recent rows suffice, and only pass card URLs that tako_search marked exportable. This pushes it above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Fetch the full content behind a url') and precisely delimits two object types: web page text and Tako card data rows. This clearly separates tako_contents from its siblings like tako_search and tako_available_data.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is best ('reading one source in full') and states the exportable-card precondition from tako_search. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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.