Retrieve complete documentation page content from Anthropic or Gemini by URL, choosing markdown, text, or HTML output.
Fetch the full content of a specific documentation page from Anthropic or Gemini docs. Returns content in the requested format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full URL of the documentation page to fetch | |
| format | No | Output format for the content | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a safe read-only operation ('Fetch') and describes the return behavior ('Returns content in the requested format'). It could mention limitations or error behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the return-format detail, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
The tool is simple, the schema covers all parameters, and there is no output schema. The description adequately explains what is returned and the source scope. A brief note on error cases or output structure would increase completeness, but the current level is sufficient for this low-complexity tool.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by emphasizing 'full content' and 'requested format', but it does not provide meaningfully more detail than the schema already gives for the url and format parameters.
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 clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (full content of a specific documentation page), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_docs and list_sections. The phrase 'specific documentation page' makes the tool's scope immediately evident.
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?
The usage context is implied: use this tool when you have the URL of a specific page and want its full content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when to use search_docs or list_sections instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.