Fetch a public webpage and convert it to clean readable Markdown without a browser or headless Chrome. Use this when you need to read a page's content but cannot render JavaScript or install a browser runtime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http or https URL to fetch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the biggest behavioral trait — static fetching with no JS execution, which explains why dynamic pages may return empty or partial content. It says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, handling of non-HTML responses, redirects, or truncation of large pages.
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, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the usage condition second. Nothing to trim.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers the essential facts: what it fetches, what it returns (Markdown), and the no-JS limitation. Only failure-mode behavior (non-HTML content, oversized pages, blocked sites) is missing.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage ('Public http or https URL to fetch'), so the schema already does the documentation work. The description's word 'public' mildly reinforces the accessibility constraint but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the 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?
States a specific verb (fetch), resource (public webpage), and output transformation (convert to clean Markdown), plus a notable constraint (no browser/headless Chrome). No sibling tool deals with web fetching, so it is unambiguously the only choice for this operation.
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?
Gives an explicit use condition: when you need a page's content but cannot render JavaScript or install a browser runtime. It does not name an alternative tool or state what to do instead when JavaScript rendering IS required, but the selection context is clear.
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.