web_brief$0.02 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | 1-3 URLs, comma separated; protocol optional | |
| maxSentences | No | Key sentences per source (default 8) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / maxSentencesAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Key sentences per source (default 8)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / qRemoved value: -{
- "description": "JSON or key=value input for the tool",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / urlsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "1-3 URLs, comma separated; protocol optional",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "urls"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the $0.02 per-call cost, the 1–3 URL input bound, and the structured/citable output format intended for other agents. It stops short of covering error behavior, rate limits, or partial-failure handling for individual URLs.
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, front-loaded with the cost signal, then the operation and output. Every clause carries information; no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values — and it does list the extracted fields (title, meta description, key sentences, outbound links) and the brief format. It is largely complete for a 2-parameter tool, though per-URL failure behavior is unstated.
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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the URL count and hints at the sentence-selection criteria, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 operation (multi-source research brief from 1–3 URLs) and enumerates exactly what is extracted, so the agent knows what the tool produces. It does not explicitly name web_fetch as the raw-fetch alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 'multi-source research brief' framing implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as web_fetch. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
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.