Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Web Engine

MCP Web Engine

by Arbolencio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

fetch_url

Retrieves the raw text content of a public HTTP(S) web page after SSRF security checks, with an optional byte limit to control the response size.

Instructions

Fetches raw text content of a web page after SSRF security checks.

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": "fetch_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesTarget public HTTP(S) URL
max_bytesNoResponse byte limit, capped by operator MAX_PAYLOAD_BYTES

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that SSRF security checks run and that only raw text (not rendered HTML processing) is returned, which is useful; however, it omits redirect behavior, timeouts, error surface, and whether only public HTTP(S) targets are reachable beyond the schema note.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and result. It is arguably too terse for a network-facing tool, but nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and the security gate but leaves the return shape, failure modes, and content-type handling unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both url and max_bytes are already documented in the schema, including the operator cap. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what structured fields provide, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: fetches raw text content of a web page. It is distinguishable from siblings like extract_markdown, though the description does not name them explicitly. The SSRF check mention adds scope (public pages only).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as extract_markdown for converted output or web_search for discovery. The only implicit guidance is that it returns raw text, which hints at a low-level fetch rather than structured extraction.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools