Skip to main content
Glama

1cent Web Intelligence for AI Agents

Url Jsonld

web.url.jsonld
Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract bounded JSON-LD blocks without executing scripts. Use only for public HTTP(S) resources; it does not execute JavaScript or bypass access controls. Pass url as an absolute public HTTP(S) URL. Keep fresh=false to allow cache reuse; set fresh=true only when a new upstream fetch is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesAbsolute public HTTP or HTTPS URL to inspect. Private, loopback, link-local, metadata-service and otherwise SSRF-sensitive destinations are rejected.
freshNoSet true only when a new upstream fetch is required; false allows the bounded cached result and is cheaper for the origin.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
toolYes
qualityNo
url_finalYes
checked_atYes
from_cacheYes
request_idYes
content_hashYes
url_requestedYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that no JavaScript is executed and no access controls are bypassed, providing specific behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, no wordiness, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence provides essential information, earning its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics adequately. Minor omission: could mention that JSON-LD blocks are typically in script tags, but still complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enriches the schema by clarifying that url must be an absolute public HTTP(S) URL and explaining the caching behavior of the fresh parameter, adding value beyond the schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool extracts bounded JSON-LD blocks without executing scripts, which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web.url.text or web.url.links that extract other content types.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description specifies the tool is for public HTTP(S) resources only and notes it does not execute JavaScript or bypass access controls. It also advises on the fresh parameter, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like web.url.extract for general extraction.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists among text extraction tools (url_extract, url_text, url_markdown, url_rag_chunks). Descriptions help differentiate them, so disambiguation is mostly clear.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent prefix (catalog_, demo_, site_, url_) and use lowercase snake_case with descriptive names. Conventions are uniform throughout.

Tool Count5/5

35 tools cover a comprehensive range of URL and site analysis functions without feeling bloated. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count is appropriate for the server's scope.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers all major aspects of URL analysis: health, content, metadata, change detection, site discovery, and security. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.

Resources