Skip to main content
Glama

Tools for Agents

by io.github.max124vip-dev

html_clean

Strip HTML to clean text

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlYesRaw HTML

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / args
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Tool arguments",
-  "properties": {
-    "text": {
-      "description": "Primary input text",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / html
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Raw HTML",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "html"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Strip HTML to clean text', which indicates tag removal but doesn't explain handling of scripts, entities, or formatting. This is insufficient for an agent to predict all behaviors and side effects.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core operation without any fluff, earning a top score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and single parameter, the description is minimally adequate but lacks specifics about output format or edge cases. The absence of an output schema and annotations increases the need for more detail, yet the basic operation is straightforward enough for a 3.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'html' is already fully documented in the schema with description 'Raw HTML', and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Strip' and identifies the resource 'HTML' with the outcome 'clean text', clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool html_to_markdown, which also processes HTML into a text-based format, so it falls short of a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like html_to_markdown or readability. The description lacks context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tools for Agents toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools have overlapping or identical purposes, such as ocr_url and ocr_image (both OCR from an image URL), compare_texts and text_diff (both compare or diff texts), extract_url and read_url (both extract webpage content), and content_hash and hash_text (both compute hashes). The boundaries between these tools are unclear, causing a high risk of misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed. Many tools use verb_noun (extract_url, validate_email), but others use noun_verb (language_detect, html_clean), single words (advisor, crawl, retrieve), or noun_noun (job_status, page_metadata). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 100 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for a generic agent toolkit. While some tools are distinct and useful, the sheer number does not align with a focused purpose; many tools are redundant or highly specialized, and the count exceeds what is typically manageable for an agent to reason about.

Completeness3/5

The toolkit covers a broad range of utilities including extraction, validation, processing, research, memory, and orchestration. However, there are no CRUD tools for creating/updating/deleting resources, no database or file system operations, and no integration beyond web/API basics. This leaves significant gaps for agents that need general lifecycle management, though it does handle many common tasks.

Resources