Fetch any public URL server-side and return clean readable text: page title plus body text with scripts, nav, footers and boilerplate stripped (max 8000 chars). [PAID: $0.015 USDC per call via x402]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http(s) URL to extract readable text from |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +falseInput schema / properties / promptRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Input prompt for this service.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public http(s) URL to extract readable text from",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "prompt"
-]New value: +[
+ "url"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: server-side fetching, the stripping of scripts/nav/footers, an 8000-char truncation cap, and a per-call price of $0.015 USDC via x402. It omits failure modes (non-public URLs, JS-rendered pages, rate limits), which keeps it short of 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?
A single sentence with the core action and output front-loaded, followed by the truncation limit and pricing tag. No wasted words and nothing important buried.
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 no output schema, the description correctly explains the return shape (title + cleaned body text, capped at 8000 chars) and the payment model. Edge-case behavior on unrenderable or inaccessible URLs is the only notable 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?
One parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the 'url' argument fully. The description's 'any public URL' / 'http(s)' framing merely restates the schema text rather than adding format or constraint 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?
States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (any public URL), execution model (server-side) and the exact output (page title plus cleaned body text). This is unambiguous and easily separated from siblings like liminal-http-headers or liminal-dns-lookup, which return different artifacts.
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?
The phrase 'any public URL' implies the usage context and scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no named alternative (e.g., when to prefer the http-headers sibling). Usage must be inferred.
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.