x402-weblens-mcp

Structured data ($0.02)

weblens_structure

Converts a web page URL or raw text into JSON that follows your supplied JSON Schema, enabling reliable structured data extraction for agents.

Instructions

Turn a web page (url) or raw text into JSON that follows the JSON Schema you send. Costs $0.02 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": {
      "schema": "<schema>"
    },
    "name": "weblens_structure"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Public http(s) URL of the page
`text`	No	Raw text to structure, instead of a url
`schema`	Yes	JSON Schema the result must follow
`instructions`	No	Extra instructions for the extraction

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it does add genuinely useful non-schema context by disclosing a $0.02 USDC cost. It says nothing about payment/auth mechanics, rate limits, latency, whether the call is synchronous, or failure behavior for unreachable or non-public URLs.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the core transformation and appending the cost as a secondary fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly indicates the return value is JSON matching the supplied schema, but it leaves out payment flow, source-selection rules, and failure modes for a paid external-fetch tool. Adequate to attempt a call, not to predict its behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters (url, text, schema, instructions) are already well documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces the url-or-text input and the caller-supplied schema, adding no constraints such as mutual exclusivity of url and text.

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 transformation verb and resource: convert a web page or raw text into JSON conforming to a caller-supplied schema. The one-line scope makes it distinguishable from weblens_extract/weblens_links/weblens_metadata in intent, though it never names or contrasts those siblings.

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: 'follows the JSON Schema you send' tells an agent the precondition (a schema is required) but there is no explicit when-to-use versus weblens_extract, no when-not, and no note on choosing url versus text.

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

Deploy Server