Skip to main content
Glama

page_meta

Lightweight page metadata: title, description, canonical, Open Graph + Twitter tags, favicons, JSON-LD @types, h1/h2. Cheaper than read_url when you do not need Markdown. Example: {url:"https://example.com"}. $0.001 USDC. Related: Full Markdown body: /read $0.002; page links: /links $0.001; unwrap redirects: /redirects $0.001; domain posture: /check $0.001.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "page_meta"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the exact return payload shape, the cost ($0.001 USDC), and the deliberate omission of body content. It does not cover auth/payment mechanics, failure modes, or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5 for an unannotated paid endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the payload inventory, then the cost comparison, then the example, then sibling routing. The related-tools clause is dense but every item earns its place by preventing a mis-call. Slightly list-like, but no filler sentences.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must describe both input and output, and it does: it enumerates returned fields, states the price, and names alternatives. Only operational details (auth, errors, redirect handling) are left implicit.

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 0% and the single url parameter is untyped beyond 'string', but the description supplies a concrete invocation example showing the parameter name and expected absolute-URL format. That compensates for most of the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb-like operation (fetch lightweight page metadata) and enumerates the exact resource fields returned: title, description, canonical, OG/Twitter tags, favicons, JSON-LD @types, h1/h2. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling read_url by contrasting cost and absence of Markdown.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit selection rule ('Cheaper than read_url when you do not need Markdown') and then routes to alternatives with prices: /read for full body, /links, /redirects, /check. An agent can pick the right tool without opening any schema.

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.

Resources