parse_governance_block_htmlExtract APS governance blocks from HTML by locating governance script or meta tags. Return parsed governance data for agent identity integration.
Extract a governance block from an HTML page. Looks for APS governance script tags or meta tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | HTML content to parse |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the tag types it inspects, but says nothing about behavior when no block is present (error vs empty result) or how retries differ, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the scanning detail.
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 single-param read-only parse tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description gives no hint of what the extracted block contains or the failure mode when markers are absent, which matters for consuming the result correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with a single 'html' parameter already documented as 'HTML content to parse'. The description restates the input as an HTML page without adding format, encoding, or size constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific verb (Extract) and resource (governance block) plus the source (an HTML page), and adds the locating mechanism (APS governance script tags or meta tags). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like generate_governance_block or verify_governance_block, which an agent must infer from the name.
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 and no alternatives named. It states what it scans for, but does not tell the agent when this parse step is required versus verify_governance_block or extract-from-other-sources workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.