Fetch a single web page and convert it to clean Markdown, stripping navigation, ads, and boilerplate for LLM-ready content.
Fetch a single web page and convert it to clean Markdown.
Args: url: Absolute http(s) URL of the page to convert. max_length: Maximum number of characters of Markdown to return.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| max_length | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (fetch + convert to Markdown) but omits important traits: whether it follows redirects, handles non-HTML content, requires network access, or what happens on failure/robots.txt. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by concise parameter notes. No filler, though the Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema structure itself.
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 explanation is not required. However, with no annotations and a network-facing fetch tool, the absence of any behavioral notes (redirects, errors, encoding) leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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 defines both parameters: url as an absolute http(s) URL, and max_length as the character cap on returned Markdown. This meaningfully fills the gap left by the undocumented schema.
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?
States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (a single web page) with the transformation (to clean Markdown). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling fetch_urls, though the differentiation is not explicit.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus fetch_urls or extract_metadata. The 'single' qualifier hints at batch alternatives but does not name the condition for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.