extract_url
Extract main content from a webpage URL.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| mode | No | fast | |
| format | No | markdown | |
| include_links | No |
Extract main content from a webpage URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| mode | No | fast | |
| format | No | markdown | |
| include_links | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / include_linksAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / modeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "fast",
+ "enum": [
+ "fast",
+ "full"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / url / descriptionRemoved value: -"Page URL to extract"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 does not mention network fetching behavior, supported content types, error handling, or any side effects. It only states the basic action without disclosing underlying behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, given the tool has four parameters and no other documentation, this brevity feels like under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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 is relatively complex with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only covers the basic purpose and omits crucial details about return formats, parameter semantics, and operational behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain mode (fast vs full), format options, or include_links. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 extracts main content from a webpage URL, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like read_url or readability, which likely serve similar purposes.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of appropriate contexts or limitations. The description provides no usage context beyond the basic action.
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.