Fetch a URL using a real browser TLS fingerprint to bypass bot checks and retrieve pages that reject standard HTTP clients.
Fetch a URL with a real browser TLS fingerprint (curl_cffi).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies the underlying curl_cffi approach and TLS fingerprinting, which is useful, but does not disclose read-only nature, redirect behavior, response format, timeout/rate limits, or that curl_cffi does not execute JavaScript.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds some signal, even though the overall description is under-specified in other dimensions.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more weight about behavior and return expectations. It covers the core mechanism but leaves out important operational details such as response shape, limitations, and error behavior.
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?
There is one required URL parameter and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only repeats 'URL' and adds no details about accepted protocols, format, normalization, or whether the URL must be absolute.
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 states a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (URL), and adds a differentiating trait: a real browser TLS fingerprint via curl_cffi. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings such as thunder_rest, thunder_open, or thunder_read, which may also retrieve URLs, so it misses the top score.
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 phrase 'real browser TLS fingerprint' implies usage when anti-bot TLS fingerprinting matters, but it does not state when to choose this over sibling fetch tools or when it is inappropriate. Guidance is present only by implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.