Skip to main content
Glama
evgenyigumnov

url-text-fetcher

by evgenyigumnov
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one fetches the text content of a URL, the other extracts links from a page. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow the verb_noun pattern consistently: fetch_url_text and fetch_page_links. The naming is clear, predictable, and uniform.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the set feels thin. While the scope is narrow and both tools are useful, this falls at the borderline where 1-2 tools are considered minimal.

    Completeness5/5

    For a URL text fetcher, the two tools cover the primary needs: retrieving the text content and discovering links on a page. The surface is complete for this simple, read-only domain, with no obvious gaps.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a simple read-like action ('Return'), but does not disclose potential caveats such as handling of relative URLs, redirects, unreachable pages, or deduplication. The behavior is underspecified beyond the basic operation.

    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?

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the core function efficiently.

    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?

    Although an output schema exists (so return values are presumably defined), the description lacks usage context and behavioral caveats. For a one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves open questions about edge cases and alternative tool selection, especially without annotations to fill in safety and side-effect information.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning by referring to the 'given page', which maps to the `url` parameter. However, it does not clarify expected URL format, requirements for absolute URLs, or any constraints, leaving the parameter semantics largely to the schema's property name.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Return a list of all URLs found on the given page' uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('URLs found on the given page'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool fetch_url_text, which is presumably about text extraction.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool fetch_url_text is named in the context but not referenced in the description, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description is the only source for behavioral traits. It mentions 'download' but does not disclose redirects, error handling, content type handling, size limits, or whether JavaScript is executed. Minimal behavioral information is present.

    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?

    The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundancy or extraneous information. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool.

    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?

    Although an output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description omits use-case context, potential limitations, and guidance on when to choose this over the sibling tool. It is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps.

    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?

    The input schema has only a 'url' string with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not add any detail about URL format, schemes, or constraints beyond the parameter name itself. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description specifies the verb 'download', the resource 'URL', and the outcome 'text', making it clear what the tool does. This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling fetch_page_links, which targets links rather than text.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance is given on when to use this tool over fetch_page_links or other alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving usage circumstances entirely to the agent.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

url-text-fetcher MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

url-text-fetcher MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/evgenyigumnov/url-text-fetcher'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server