Fetch any public web page and return clean, readable Markdown with navigation, ads, and boilerplate stripped. For agents that need article text or documentation as Markdown. ($0.001 per call, paid via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http(s) URL of the page to fetch and convert to markdown |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| markdown | No | ||
| word_count | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the cost per call and clarifies output format (cleaned Markdown with navigation stripped), adding value beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 sentences: first describes the core function, second states the use case and cost. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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 the simple tool (single URL input, Markdown output) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, cost, and output format. Missing details like error handling are minor.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'url' parameter. The tool description does not add specific parameter guidance, but it provides context about the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.
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 that the tool fetches public web pages and returns clean Markdown with ads/boilerplate stripped. It specifies the use case (article text or documentation) and distinguishes it from other tools in the sibling list.
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 says 'For agents that need article text or documentation as Markdown,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the use case is well-defined.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.
Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.
With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.
The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).
