Extract every link from a page as JSON with text and href, filtered by a regex pattern matched on either link text or URL.
All links on the page as JSON [{text, href}]. pattern is a regex matched on href or text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| unique | No | ||
| pattern | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses the output shape and that pattern matches href or text, but it does not disclose that the default limit of 100 caps results or that unique=true deduplicates by default, despite saying 'All links'.
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?
The description is two tight sentences with no filler and is front-loaded with the main result shape. Every phrase contributes either output structure or parameter meaning.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the description leaves limit and unique semantics unexplained and does not flag the result cap implied by limit=100.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains pattern well as a regex matched on href or text, but limit and unique are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving two of three parameters without meaning.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: it extracts all links from the page and returns them as JSON objects with text and href. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling extraction tools such as get_text, get_html, find_in_page, or extract_structured, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_in_page, get_text, or evaluate. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'All links on the page', with no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.