Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
x402-weblens-mcp

x402-weblens-mcp

by bartenderthiago82
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Page links ($0.002)

weblens_links

Extract and list all links from a web page, split into internal and external, to help agents map site navigation and references.

Instructions

List all links on a web page, split into internal and external. Costs $0.002 USDC.

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": "weblens_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic http(s) URL of the page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the $0.002 USDC cost and that results are partitioned into internal vs external links, but says nothing about fetch behavior, JS-rendered content, limits, failure modes, or auth for the target URL.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the cost. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (internal/external link split) and its price. Only edge-case behavior for non-HTML or dynamic pages is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it as a public http(s) URL. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that baseline.

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?

"List all links on a web page, split into internal and external" gives a specific verb (list), resource (links on a page), and even the output partitioning, which distinguishes it from weblens_extract and weblens_metadata. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for link discovery, but the description never says when to prefer it over weblens_extract or weblens_structure, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only added decision factor is the price.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools