Skip to main content
Glama

Fetch Url

fetch_url
Read-only

Retrieves a public web page and extracts clean, readable text from its HTML, enabling AI assistants to use web content without page clutter.

Instructions

Fetch and extract clean readable text from a public web page (HTML).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "fetch_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to establish safety. It adds real behavioral context by saying the result is 'clean readable text' rather than raw HTML, and that only public pages are supported. It says nothing about failures on non-HTML responses, redirects, size limits, or whether the fetch is blocking.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant restatement of the title or tool name. Every phrase ('public', 'HTML', 'clean readable text') contributes scope information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be spelled out. For a simple one-parameter read tool the definition is nearly complete, but the undocumented URL format and the silent behavior on non-HTML or private pages leave an agent guessing on edge cases.

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 single 'url' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the documentation burden for it. It never says whether a scheme is required, whether relative or local paths work, or what form of URL is acceptable, so the gap is not compensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch and extract clean readable text from a public web page (HTML)'), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It does not name a sibling or explain how it differs from document-oriented readers like read_document, so it stops short of 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The qualifiers 'public' and '(HTML)' implicitly scope usage to unauthenticated, HTML pages, which is useful guidance in itself. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no pointer to an alternative for PDFs, authenticated pages, or JS-rendered content.

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