gemini-cli-bridge

by chaodongzhang

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Webfetch

WebFetch

Fetch web page content from a URL and return JSON with status, content, or error for use by AI clients.

Instructions

Minimal web fetch using the requests library; return JSON {ok,status,content?,error?}.

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": "WebFetch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`timeout_s`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 return shape ({ok,status,content?,error?}) and that it is a plain 'requests' fetch (no browser/JS rendering), but says nothing about auth, redirects, content-type handling, or failure modes. Helpful but far from complete for an unannotated 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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the return contract. No filler; every clause carries 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 values needn't be restated (and the description's restatement is redundant but harmless). However, for an unannotated, 0%-coverage two-parameter tool, the description is thin on error behavior, timeouts, and invocation context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter detail. The 'url' target is loosely inferable from 'web fetch,' but 'timeout_s' (its unit — seconds — and default of 15) is undocumented anywhere the agent can see from the description.

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+resource (web fetch) and adds the implementation detail 'using the requests library,' which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling gemini_web_fetch (a Gemini-processed fetch). It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

'Minimal' hints at the lightweight use case versus gemini_web_fetch, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is implied at best, leaving the agent to infer which fetch tool to pick.

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