agentsearch_extractExtract clean page content from any URL to get markdown or text for analysis, with optional character limits to control response size.
Extract page content from a URL via AgentSearch POST /v1/extract (direct mode only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Absolute URL to extract | |
| formats | No | Optional formats, e.g. ["markdown","text"] | |
| max_chars | No | Optional max characters to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (extracting page content) and the mode constraint ('direct mode only'), which implies a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The added endpoint detail and mode restriction provide some value beyond the schema.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, the endpoint, and a key mode constraint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple extraction tool.
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 tool with three well-documented parameters and a clear purpose, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient to call it correctly. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral details (e.g., what the response looks like, default output format) leaves some gaps, especially since there is no output schema. The description is adequate but not complete for an agent facing a choice between this and its sibling.
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%, so the parameters url, formats, and max_chars are fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage, defaults, or interactions. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the action ('Extract page content from a URL') and the specific resource (AgentSearch POST /v1/extract). It is inherently distinct from the sibling tool agentsearch_web_search, as one retrieves content from a specific URL while the other searches. The mention of 'direct mode only' adds further specificity.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus agentsearch_web_search. The description does not state when extraction is preferred over search, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is 'direct mode only', which is a mode constraint, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.