web_brief$3 per call — Multi-source research brief from 1–3 URLs. For each source extract title, meta description, key sentences (numbered/quoted/date-or-figure-bearing) and outbound links. Returns a structured, citable brief other agents can consume without their own web access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | JSON or key=value input for the tool |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cost, the URL limit (1–3), the extraction process, and the output format. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or how invalid URLs are handled, but it provides a reasonable baseline for a tool of this nature.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the cost and purpose, then lists extraction details and output characteristics. It is concise, with no redundant phrasing, and covers the key points an agent needs to understand the tool's function.
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?
The tool's complexity is moderate, but the input schema is a single opaque parameter with no guidance on format beyond 'JSON or key=value.' The description does not explain how to specify multiple URLs, what keys to use, or what the structured output looks like. Given there is no output schema, an agent would have difficulty calling this tool correctly without additional context.
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?
The schema defines a single parameter 'q' described as 'JSON or key=value input for the tool,' which is extremely vague. The description mentions the tool accepts 1–3 URLs but does not explain how to structure them within the parameter. The schema description coverage is 100% only because the parameter has a description, but that description adds almost no useful meaning, and the tool description does not compensate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it creates a multi-source research brief from 1–3 URLs, extracting title, meta description, key sentences, and outbound links. It specifies the output as a structured, citable brief, which distinguishes it from a simple fetch tool like web_fetch, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 description implies when to use it: when an agent needs a research brief without direct web access, and notes a cost of $3 per call. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, leaving the decision partially to the agent.
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.