A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceProvides AI agents with reliable web fetching capabilities, handling retries, caching, and anti-bot bypass automatically.
MIT
SteadyFetch
Server Details
Reliable web fetching for AI agents with retry, circuit breaker, caching, and anti-bot bypass
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
5 toolscache_statsAInspect
Get cache statistics — size and item count.
Useful for monitoring cache utilization and deciding when to clear.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves size and item count, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention non-destructiveness, side effects, or any operational constraints. This is adequate but missing explicit safety confirmation.
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 two sentences that are concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains no redundant information and every phrase adds value.
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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what is returned (size, item count) and the practical use case. Nothing critical is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially complete and the description correctly omits parameter details. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get cache statistics') and the specific output details ('size and item count'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like clear_cache and fetch_markdown by focusing on statistics rather than mutation or data fetching.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'for monitoring cache utilization and deciding when to clear.' It implies a relationship with clear_cache but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the highest score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_domainAInspect
Check the health status of a domain.
Returns the circuit breaker state: 'closed' (healthy), 'open' (failing),
or 'half_open' (testing recovery). Use this before batch operations to
avoid wasting time on domains that are down.
Args:
domain: The domain to check (e.g., 'example.com')
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the circuit breaker states and their meanings ('closed', 'open', 'half_open'), which adds valuable context about what the tool returns and implies it is a read-only health check. It does not mention potential errors, but for this simple tool it is sufficient.
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 brief and front-loaded with the verb-resource statement. Each sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and parameter explanation. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the description covers the core behavior, usage context, and return value interpretation. An output schema exists, so detailed return value structure is already provided. However, it does not mention error handling or domain format edge cases, leaving a slight gap for a production 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 schema has no description for the 'domain' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by including an Args section that explains the parameter and gives an example format ('example.com'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition.
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 'Check the health status of a domain' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cache_stats and fetch_url by focusing on domain health, not caching or fetching.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use this before batch operations to avoid wasting time on domains that are down,' providing a concrete use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to specific alternatives, so it falls 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.
clear_cacheAInspect
Clear the entire fetch cache.
Use when you need fresh data and don't want to rely on cached results.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior 'Clear the entire fetch cache,' which implies a destructive action, but does not disclose side effects like irreversibility, impact on other users, or permissions needed. The behavior is not hidden, but context is minimal.
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?
Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second gives the trigger for use. No fluff, front-loaded, and appropriately sized for a simple 0-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params), the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), and the clear usage guidance, the description is largely complete. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit warning about the global/destructive nature, but 'entire' conveys the scope.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the description does not need to explain any. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously true), and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameters. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and no extra credit is needed.
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 specific action 'Clear the entire fetch cache' with a verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cache_stats (inspect), fetch_markdown, or fetch_url (retrieve). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 a direct use case: 'Use when you need fresh data and don't want to rely on cached results.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios (e.g., when cache_stats would be more appropriate).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetch_markdownAInspect
Fetch a URL and return clean markdown text optimized for LLM consumption.
Same reliability as fetch_url but returns only the markdown content,
stripping HTML, scripts, and noise. Best for when you need the page
content for analysis, summarization, or data extraction.
Args:
url: The URL to fetch
use_cache: Whether to use cached results (default: true)
wait_for: CSS selector to wait for before capturing
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| wait_for | No | ||
| use_cache | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description itself must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that the tool strips HTML, scripts, and noise to produce clean markdown, and the args section details caching and wait behavior. However, it does not mention potential errors, redirects, rate limits, or side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a comparative sentence, and an args block with each parameter explained. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and all parameters. With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed. It lacks some edge-case context like error handling or cache invalidation, but the core decision-making information is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: url is 'The URL to fetch', use_cache is 'Whether to use cached results' with default true, and wait_for is 'CSS selector to wait for before capturing'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema definitions.
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 fetches a URL and returns clean markdown text. It also differentiates from the sibling fetch_url by noting it returns only markdown content and strips HTML, scripts, and noise, making its purpose specific and distinct.
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 provides explicit usage context: 'Best for when you need the page content for analysis, summarization, or data extraction.' It also references the alternative fetch_url, implying when to use this variant. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond mentioning fetch_url.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetch_urlAInspect
Fetch a URL with full reliability — retry, circuit breaker, cache, and anti-bot bypass.
Returns both raw HTML and clean markdown. Automatically retries on failure
with exponential backoff, falls back to plain HTTP if browser fetch fails,
and circuit-breaks domains that are consistently down.
Args:
url: The URL to fetch
use_cache: Whether to use cached results (default: true, TTL 1 hour)
js_render: Whether to render JavaScript (default: true, disable for speed)
wait_for: CSS selector to wait for before capturing (e.g., '.results-loaded')
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| wait_for | No | ||
| js_render | No | ||
| use_cache | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses retry with exponential backoff, HTTP fallback, domain circuit-breaking, cache TTL, and default js_render behavior. This is rich behavioral detail beyond what schemas or annotations could 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?
The description is well-structured, leading with a punchy summary of capabilities and reliability, followed by a clear Args list. Each sentence adds value; no fluff or redundancy. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, reliability behaviors, and return content (raw HTML + markdown). An output schema exists but the description still provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates with an explicit Args block explaining each parameter, including defaults and examples (e.g., wait_for CSS selector). This fully clarifies the meaning and usage of all four parameters.
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 fetches a URL with full reliability, returning both raw HTML and clean markdown. It distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch_markdown by offering both formats and adding reliability features like retry, circuit breaker, and anti-bot bypass.
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 provides context on when to tweak parameters (e.g., disable js_render for speed) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling fetch_markdown or explain when to prefer one over the other. It implies usage through feature listing but lacks clear exclusion or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
5 tool updates
- First observed
cache_stats - First observed
check_domain - First observed
clear_cache - First observed
fetch_markdown - First observed
fetch_url
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Reliable web access for AI agents: smart HTTP, rotating proxies, and full-browser rendering.
Prompt-injection scanning and safe webpage fetching for AI agents reading untrusted content.
Web scraping for AI agents. Converts URLs to clean, LLM-ready Markdown with anti-bot bypass.
LLM-ready web search + instant answers + URL-to-clean-text fetch for agents and RAG.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn anti-bot-resilient HTTP fetch tool for AI agents that mimics real browser fingerprints, with LLM-context-safe response truncation and stateful sessions.118MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform web searches, fetch and extract page content, and crawl sites with caching, rate limiting, and robots.txt compliance, all without needing API keys.11MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to search the web, read and extract content from webpages, fetch JSON from REST APIs, and collect links while bypassing anti-bot protections.36ISC
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
fetch_url and fetch_markdown both fetch URLs, but fetch_url returns raw HTML+markdown while fetch_markdown returns only markdown, which is a clear distinction. check_domain, cache_stats, and clear_cache are all distinct. The overlap is minor and well-handled by descriptions.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools use a verb_noun pattern: check_domain, clear_cache, fetch_markdown, fetch_url. cache_stats deviates slightly, being a noun_noun phrase, but it's still clear and consistent enough.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a fetch/cache utility. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: fetching with two output formats, cache inspection, cache clearing, and domain health checks. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of reliable fetching with caching and circuit breaking.