Extract raw page content from multiple URLs, returning markdown or text format for direct use in data retrieval and analysis.
Extract content from URLs. Returns raw page content in markdown or text format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | ||
| query | No | ||
| format | No | markdown | |
| extract_depth | No | basic | |
| include_images | No | ||
| include_favicon | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output format and gives no details about rate limits, auth, error handling, redirects, or side effects. The existence of parameters like extract_depth and include_images is not disclosed, so behavioral expectations are unclear.
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 a single sentence and is technically concise with no filler. However, it lacks structure: there is no front-loaded key advice, no breakdown of important parameters, and no example usage. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, given the tool's complexity.
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 has 6 parameters including enums and booleans, and an output schema exists. The description is far from complete: it does not explain what 'raw page content' includes, how the query parameter affects extraction, the difference between basic and advanced depth, or image/favicon inclusion. An agent would need to infer a lot or rely on trial and error.
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 0% and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (urls, query, format, extract_depth, include_images, include_favicon). The description adds no value to the input schema, and since the schema lacks descriptions, the agent has no way to understand parameter semantics beyond the names and enums.
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 verb 'Extract' and the resource 'content from URLs', and mentions the output formats (markdown or text). It is distinct enough from tavily_search (which searches) but overlaps conceptually with tavily_crawl, though crawl likely implies full-site traversal. Still, the purpose is understandable.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., tavily_crawl for site traversal, tavily_search for search results). The description does not state any alternative conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.