Skip to main content
Glama

scrape

Extract structured fields from any URL by describing them in plain language, with caching, pagination, and optional LLM-based selector discovery.

Instructions

Extract structured fields from a web page.

`fields` is comma-separated with optional inline types, e.g.
"title, price:float, in_stock:bool". Field names are arbitrary.

A field that could not be extracted comes back as null with an entry in
`misses` explaining why -- that is a normal result, not a failure.

Cost control: `no_llm=True` uses only structured data and already-cached
selectors, so the call is free; `max_llm_calls` caps what an uncached page
may spend. `scroll` and `paginate` cost extra fetches, not extra tokens.

There is no `strict`: it exists on the CLI only to pick an exit code, and
`misses` already tells you what was not found.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
modeNoauto
fieldsYes
no_llmNo
scrollNo
refreshNo
no_cacheNo
paginateNo
cache_ttlNo
max_llm_callsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
modeYes
missesNofield name -> why it is null. A populated misses is a result, not an error.
recordsYes
llm_callsNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that missing fields yield null with a `misses` entry, that this is normal, and clarifies cost implications of `scroll`, `paginate`, and `no_llm`. It even preemptively notes that `strict` does not exist, which prevents confusion. This is thorough and transparent for a scraping tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise yet information-dense. It is structured into clear sections: purpose, field syntax, expected missing-field behavior, cost control, and a note about `strict`. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers core behavioral aspects such as output for missing fields, cost implications, and caching hints. It doesn't explain every parameter (mode, refresh, no_cache, cache_ttl) or discuss auth/rate limits, but the output schema and naming conventions cover some gaps. Overall, it is fairly comprehensive but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 0% for the 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does provide detailed meaning for `fields` (comma-separated inline types), `no_llm`, `max_llm_calls`, `scroll`, and `paginate`. However, `mode`, `refresh`, `no_cache`, and `cache_ttl` are left unexplained, relying on their names for inference. The description adds significant value but doesn't fully cover all parameters.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Extract structured fields from a web page.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cached_selectors or refresh_selectors, which manage selectors rather than perform extraction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context on how to use the tool, including the `fields` syntax and cost-control options (e.g., no_llm, max_llm_calls, scroll/paginate costs). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the provided context is enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/PedroHenriqueNS/reapfield'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server