Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Metaso Search MCP Server

Metaso Search MCP Server

by SecretRichGarden
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

metaso_reader

Reads a webpage from a given URL and converts its content into structured Markdown or JSON, enabling extraction of article text and readable formatting.

Instructions

读取指定URL的网页内容并转换为结构化格式。

支持的输出格式:

  • markdown: 返回Markdown格式的网页内容 (默认)

  • json: 返回JSON格式，包含标题、URL、内容等结构化信息

适用场景:

  • 提取新闻文章内容

  • 获取网页正文

  • 将网页转换为可读格式

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "metaso_reader"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes要读取的网页URL (必填)
formatNo输出格式markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (reads URL and converts format) and the output formats, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, restrictions (e.g., paywall, JavaScript-heavy pages), rate limits, or authentication needs. Since the tool seems simple and read-only, a 3 is appropriate—it adds some context but lacks depth.

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 and well-structured: an initial statement, a bulleted list of formats, and a bulleted list of use cases. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant phrases. It is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, formats, defaults, and use cases. It lacks explicit notes on error handling or limitations, but given the low complexity and clear schema, the description is largely complete. A 4 acknowledges minor missing behavioral context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions and the enum for format; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a list of supported output formats and default, but this largely duplicates the schema's 'default' field. The description does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is fair.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies that the tool reads a given URL's web content and converts it to structured formats (markdown/json). The verb '读取' and resource 'URL的网页内容' are specific, and the mention of structured output distinguishes it from a generic fetch tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'metaso_search' (which likely searches), 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description lists concrete applicable scenarios such as extracting news articles, getting main body text, and converting pages to readable format. This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude cases (e.g., 'do not use for search' or 'only for public pages'), but the scenarios are sufficient for basic guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools