Fetch any public web page server-side and get clean readable text back. Costs 5 credits (new accounts get 25 free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http(s) URL | |
| api_key | Yes | Your DACIX API key (dacix_sk_...). Get one with store_register. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that fetching is server-side, costs 5 credits, and requires an API key. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or behavior for non-public URLs. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.
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 sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the credit cost efficiently.
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?
The description lacks details about the output format, such as whether text is returned as plain text or structured data. No information about error responses or pagination. Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return value more precisely.
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 its two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format or constraints for the URL or API key. It remains at the baseline.
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 verb (fetch), resource (any public web page), and output (clean readable text). It specifies server-side execution, which distinguishes it from client-side fetches. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'web_fetch', which may have similar functionality.
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 mentions the credit cost but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'web_fetch' or 'web_search'. There is no information about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.