PAID ($0.01, one payment covers a batch of up to 50 URLs): structured content as JSON — title, headings, paragraphs, links, images, markdown — optionally constrained by a natural-language schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | A single page to extract | |
| urls | No | Batch (at most 50) for one payment | |
| schema | No | Optional natural-language description of the JSON to extract |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the cost, the batch limit (up to 50 URLs per payment), and the output format (JSON with specified fields). It does not mention side effects, permissions, errors, or pagination, but for a read-only extraction tool these are less critical. It provides moderate transparency but could be more explicit about whether it is read-only and any rate limits.
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 that leads with the paid aspect and batch limit, then lists the output fields. There is zero waste; every phrase earns its place. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the extracted fields (title, headings, paragraphs, links, images, markdown). It covers all parameters, the batch limit, and the cost. It does not mention error handling, required URL formats, or any authentication, but for a straightforward extraction tool it is reasonably complete.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it specifies that one payment covers a batch of up to 50 URLs (clarifying the urls parameter) and that the schema is a natural-language description (matching the schema's own description but reinforcing it). This adds value beyond the structured schema.
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 structured content (title, headings, paragraphs, links, images, markdown) from web pages as JSON, with an optional schema constraint. It uses a specific verb (extract) and resource (web content). It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling tools, but the action and output are unambiguous.
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 provides usage context: it is a paid tool ($0.01 per batch up to 50 URLs) and optionally accepts a natural-language schema. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like webcap_capture or webcap_analyze, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The cost and batch info hint at usage, but explicit routing is absent.
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.