Extract schema-conforming JSON from a public URL. Scrapes a public URL into clean Markdown and returns JSON that conforms to a caller-supplied bounded JSON Schema using Structured Outputs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| render | No | ||
| schema | No | ||
| instructions | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuine behavioral context: the page is scraped into clean Markdown and the response conforms to a caller-supplied bounded JSON Schema via Structured Outputs. It does not disclose rate limits or the Markdown/text shape returned alongside the JSON, keeping it short of a 5.
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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Every clause carries information about what the tool does or how output is shaped.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the core mechanism is explained. However, for a generic tool with a nested object parameter and zero parameter documentation, the absence of any guidance on 'render' and 'instructions' leaves the definition incomplete.
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 0% with four parameters. The description loosely clarifies 'url' (public) and 'schema' (caller-supplied bounded JSON Schema), but 'render' and 'instructions' are never explained in either schema or description, and the nested 'schema' object has no detail. It only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: extract schema-conforming JSON from a public URL, with the pipeline (scrape → Markdown → structured output) made explicit. An agent can grasp exactly what it does, though it never names how it differs from a generic sibling like web_scrape.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'public URL' phrasing implies a scope constraint, but nothing routes the agent between this and the many scrape/search siblings, and no prerequisites are stated.
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.
