Skip to main content
Glama
alexandru2882

URL Text Fetcher MCP Server

by alexandru2882
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: fetch_page_links extracts links from a page, while fetch_url_text downloads visible text from a URL. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'fetch_' as the prefix, followed by a descriptive noun (page_links, url_text). This predictable naming convention enhances readability and usability for agents.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for its purpose of URL text fetching. While the tools cover basic operations, the scope is limited and lacks functionality like handling errors, filtering content, or supporting different content types, which could hinder agent workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a URL text fetcher. It lacks essential operations such as fetching metadata, handling HTTP status codes, extracting specific elements (e.g., images, tables), or providing configuration options (e.g., timeout, headers), leaving significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures in real-world scenarios.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does 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 action but doesn't mention potential behaviors like rate limits, error handling, or whether it follows redirects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external resources.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its simple purpose.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on behavioral aspects. Without annotations, it should provide more context about how the tool operates, such as handling of invalid URLs or network issues.

    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 has 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't add any details about the 'url' parameter beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose. Since there's only one parameter and its role is somewhat clear from context, this meets the baseline for minimal compensation.

    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 states the verb ('Return') and resource ('list of all links on the page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'fetch_url_text', which might also involve page content extraction, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'fetch_url_text' or any alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the URL must be accessible or if authentication is needed, leaving usage unclear.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'visible text' which hints at HTML parsing limitations, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'visible' excludes (e.g., scripts, hidden elements). This leaves significant gaps for a web scraping tool.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (web scraping), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral constraints and usage differentiation, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

    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 has 0% description coverage, but there's only one parameter ('url'). The description doesn't add any semantic details about the URL parameter (e.g., format requirements, supported protocols), though the simplicity of a single URL parameter means the baseline is adequate despite the coverage gap.

    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 states the action ('Download') and resource ('all visible text from a URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'fetch_page_links', which likely extracts links rather than text content.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of its sibling 'fetch_page_links' or any context about when text extraction is preferred over link extraction, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

url-text-fetcher-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

url-text-fetcher-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alexandru2882/url-text-fetcher-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server