Fetch and parse .onion pages over Tor to extract titles, links, and visible text as structured data; requires a running Tor daemon.
Fetch and parse a .onion site via Tor. Returns structured data: page title, all links, and visible body text. Requires running Tor daemon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The .onion URL to scrape |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine operational context the annotations don't: the return payload shape (title, links, body text) and the prerequisite that a Tor daemon must be running. It stops short of failure modes, timeouts, or content/size limits for an outbound call to a hidden service.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the return shape and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies both the prerequisite (Tor daemon) and the return contents, which is most of what an agent needs. Only error/timeout behavior and the routing versus tor_fetch_onion are missing.
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 100% with a single required `url` parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics; baseline 3 applies. The description implies the URL must be a .onion address but adds no format, encoding, or length guidance beyond what the schema states.
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+resource ("Fetch and parse a .onion site via Tor") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It fails to differentiate from the near-identical sibling tor_fetch_onion (and tor_search_onion), leaving the fetch-vs-scrape distinction to inference.
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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to any of the closely related siblings (tor_fetch_onion, tor_search_onion, onion_lookup). The only scoping information is the implicit ".onion" requirement in the URL parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.