Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

web_scrape

Scrape a public URL into markdown, HTML, links, or metadata. Fetches a single page and returns clean content, stripping navigation and boilerplate.

Instructions

Scrape a URL into markdown, HTML, links or metadata. Fetches a single public URL and returns clean content in the requested formats (markdown, html, raw_html, links, metadata). The request body IS the ScrapeOption object itself — e.g. {"url": "https://example.com"} — do not wrap it in an extra key. With render=auto the request starts as a fast HTTP fetch and escalates to a real browser when the page is blocked or rendered with JavaScript; backend only pins a specific headless-browser engine for the browser tier and is not a render mode. only_main_content (default true) strips navigation, headers, footers and other boilerplate before conversion. Only public pages are supported; respect each site's terms of use and robots directives. A handful of popular sites (Amazon, Reddit, Yelp, LinkedIn, and others) already have a dedicated, more reliable endpoint elsewhere in this API — a failed scrape against one of them names it. A Reddit URL that maps onto a dedicated Reddit endpoint (listings, search, comment threads, user and domain pages) is answered by that endpoint instead, and its response is returned as-is in data with an X-Routed-To header; send dedicated=false to always get the scraped page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scrapeOptionYesScrape options

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.9
    • addedInput schema / properties / scrapeOption / properties / dedicated
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / scrapeOption / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "backend": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "formats": {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "max_age": {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "only_main_content": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "proxy": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "render": {
+    "enum": [
+      "auto",
+      "http",
+      "browser",
+      "unblocker"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "store_in_cache": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "url": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "wait_for": {
+    "type": "integer"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / scrapeOption / required
      Added value: +[
+  "url"
+]
  3. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it warns that the body IS the ScrapeOption object (no wrapping), that render=auto escalates from HTTP to browser, that backend only pins a browser engine, that only_main_content strips boilerplate by default, and that dedicated routing returns data as-is with an X-Routed-To header. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer.

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?

It is long and dense but front-loads purpose and payoff, and every clause (body shape, render modes, routing, main-content stripping) adds actionable information rather than filler.

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?

For a complex nested-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation shape, format options, escalation behavior, and routing caveats. Only a few auxiliary parameters lack explanation, which is a minor 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully goes beyond the bare property names by explaining render, backend, only_main_content, dedicated and formats semantics. The remaining params (proxy, max_age, wait_for, store_in_cache) are left unexplained, keeping it short of a 5.

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+resource (scrape a single public URL) and enumerates the exact output formats. It also differentiates itself from the many dedicated sibling endpoints by name, so an agent can tell when this generic tool applies.

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?

Explicitly covers when to use it (public pages, single URL), when a dedicated sibling endpoint will intercept the call, and the escape hatch (dedicated=false) plus the render=auto escalation ladder. This is genuine when/when-not routing guidance.

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