Fetch a URL and return its readable content as markdown, text, or HTML; JSON is pretty printed and binaries are rejected.
Fetch a URL and return its readable content. format is markdown (default), text or html; JSON is pretty printed; binaries are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| format | No | markdown | |
| timeout | No | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| include_links | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that JSON is pretty printed and binaries are rejected, which goes beyond the name, but it says nothing about redirect handling, error responses, timeout behavior, or authentication requirements for protected URLs.
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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action and then the output-formatting rules. Every clause 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and the description covers the format behavior adequately. However, with four undocumented parameters (timeout, max_chars, include_links, url) and no annotations, the definition is incomplete for an agent trying to control request behavior.
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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains the format parameter's allowed values and default, but leaves url, timeout, max_chars, and include_links entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a URL and return its readable content'), which makes the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinct from a search tool. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the siblings web_search or web_diagnose, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it already has a URL. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over web_search or web_diagnose, and no exclusions beyond the implicit 'binaries are rejected' constraint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.