astrbot-mcp

web_fetch

Fetches a web page and extracts readable body text for reading search results or online documentation.

Instructions

抓取网页并提取可读正文，用于阅读搜索结果或在线文档。

Args: url: 要抓取的 http/https URL。 max_chars: 正文字符上限，100-50000。 include_links: 是否同时返回页面中的链接。 max_links: include_links=true 时最多返回多少条链接。

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": "web_fetch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`max_chars`	No
`max_links`	No
`include_links`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that content is converted to readable body text rather than raw HTML, and that output is capped by max_chars. It does not say how failures, redirects, JavaScript-rendered pages, or truncation are handled.

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?

One lead sentence establishes purpose and use case before the parameter list, and the Args block is terse with no repeating filler. Nothing in it is wasted.

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?

Purpose, all four parameters, and constraints are covered, and an output schema handles return values. But with zero annotations on a network-fetching tool, the absence of any note about error behavior, content-type limits, or blocking/robots constraints leaves a real gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must do the work and largely does: it constrains url to http/https, states the 100-50000 range for max_chars (absent from the schema), and explains that max_links only applies when include_links=true — a genuine conditional dependency. Only defaults (8000, 30, false) are unmentioned.

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 ('抓取网页并提取可读正文') plus the concrete use case of reading search results or online docs. It is clearly distinguishable from fs_read and web_search, though it never contrasts itself with http_request, the closest sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase '用于阅读搜索结果或在线文档' implies the intended workflow (web_search → web_fetch) but gives no explicit when-not conditions. An agent must infer that binary downloads, API calls, or non-HTML content belong to http_request instead.

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