Fetch any webpage and return its title, meta description, H1-H3 headings, and word count to analyze on-page SEO structure.
Fetch one page and return its title, meta description, h1-h3 headings and word count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| h1 | Yes | ||
| h2 | Yes | ||
| h3 | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| word_count | Yes | ||
| description | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent with those. The description adds little behavioral nuance beyond processing one page and listing extracted content pieces; it does not discuss failure modes, external network effects, or restrictions.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by a precise list of outputs. Every word adds information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.
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?
The tool is low complexity: one required URL, read-only and idempotent annotations, and an output schema exist. The description provides enough selection and invocation context for an agent to call the tool correctly; failure-mode details are not essential at this complexity.
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 coverage for the URL parameter is 0%, so the description compensates by defining the parameter as 'one page' and implying it should be an HTML page from which title, meta description, and headings can be extracted. It does not specify URL format or public-access constraints, but with a single required parameter this is a minor gap.
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?
Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one page') and enumerates an exact return contract: title, meta description, H1-H3 headings, and word count. This distinguishes it from the keyword- and sitemap-oriented sibling tools, none of which provide a per-page content outline.
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?
Clearly frames the tool as a single-page content-outline operation, so an agent knows to use it when it needs on-page title, meta description, headings, or word count. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular 'one page' separates it from bulk sitemap and keyword tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.