Retrieves article or web content from a URL through authenticated HTTP access, enabling AI agents to gather source material for search and analysis.
Extract content through the authenticated HTTP authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| mode | No | default | |
| caller | No | mcp | |
| domain | No | ||
| free_only | No | ||
| content_type | No | article |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.5Input schema / properties / callerAdded value: +{
+ "default": "mcp",
+ "title": "Caller",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / content_typeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "article",
+ "title": "Content Type",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / free_onlyAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Free Only",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / modeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "default",
+ "title": "Mode",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.5.0Input schema / properties / domainAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Domain",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does 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 only hints that authentication is required via 'authenticated HTTP authority' and says nothing about permissions, rate limits, whether the operation is read-only, what gets extracted, or how failures 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no verbosity, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified and jargon-heavy rather than structured to help an agent act.
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 values need not be explained, but the definition remains seriously incomplete for a six-parameter extraction tool with no annotations and zero schema parameter descriptions. An agent lacks enough context to select or configure it confidently.
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% and there are six parameters, including mode, caller, domain, free_only, and content_type. The description provides no explanation of any parameter's meaning, accepted values, or effect.
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 restates the tool name with the opaque phrase 'through the authenticated HTTP authority' and does not clarify what kind of content is extracted, from where, or how this differs from siblings such as extract_content_v2 or capture_site. It is close to a tautology rather than a meaningful statement of purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_web, capture_site, extract_content_v2, or other siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.