WET - Web Extended Toolkit MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v3.3.0-beta.19
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (config, extract, search, media, help). However, config__open_relay is a specific action closely related to config, which could cause some ambiguity. Overall, descriptions help differentiate them.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names use lowercase with underscores, but patterns vary: single words (config, extract, help, media, search) vs. double underscore (config__open_relay). No consistent verb_noun pattern.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is well-scoped for a web extended toolkit. Each tool covers a core area (config, extraction, search, media, help), no redundancy or obvious missing essentials.
Completeness4/5
Covers key web tasks: search, content extraction (including crawl, interact, convert), media handling, and server config. Minor gaps like more advanced web automation or URL management, but sufficient for typical use cases.
Average 4.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 120 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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?
Annotations provide idempotentHint but the description lists actions that may not all be idempotent (e.g., setup_reset). No additional behavioral context such as side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits is provided. The description does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two sentences), but it externalizes necessary information to another tool ('Use help tool for full docs'), which degrades structure. It is not verbose, but it is incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 9 actions, output schema exists), the description is severely lacking. It provides no detail about action semantics, parameter usage, or when to set vs. status. The referral to help tool indicates incompleteness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to explain any of the four optional parameters (key, value, remote_type, force). The action list gives context but no parameter details. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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?
The description clearly states 'Server config and management' and lists distinct actions, making the purpose evident. It differentiates from sibling 'config__open_relay' as a general config tool versus a specific relay config.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only suggests using the help tool for full docs, shifting the burden away from the description. Siblings like 'search' or 'extract' are not compared, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 discloses that a browser is launched and what is returned, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., user interaction required) or whether the action is reversible. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and efficiently convey the action and return values with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the action and return values adequately. However, it could briefly explain what the 'relay configuration form' is or why one would use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining the tool's action and outputs, justifying the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.
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 uses specific verbs ('Open'), identifies the resource ('relay configuration form for wet-mcp'), and explicitly states the return values (relay URL, browser launch status, current status). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like 'config' or 'search'.
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 its siblings. The description only states what it does, without indicating prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the side effects of downloading files to local storage and notes that the 'prompt' parameter is ignored for backward compatibility. It also mentions that the 'analyze' action has been removed and returns an error. However, it does not cover rate limits, authentication, or potential overwriting behavior. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are consistent with the description, and no contradiction 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points for actions and parameters, and includes a typical workflow section. It is somewhat verbose due to the deprecation notice, but every sentence adds value. The purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists but not described), the description covers the main workflow, actions, parameters, and deprecation. It lacks details on the output schema (e.g., metadata structure) and does not address the 'max_items' parameter, but is otherwise complete for typical use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each parameter's role (url for list, media_urls for download, media_type filter, output_dir default) and providing examples. However, the 'max_items' parameter from the schema is not mentioned, leaving a gap in documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: discover and download media files from web pages. It specifies two distinct actions (list and download) with examples, and explicitly notes the removal of the 'analyze' action, which helps avoid confusion. The tool's scope is well-defined and distinct from sibling tools like extract or search.
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?
The description provides a typical workflow (list then download) and mentions using imagine-mcp for analysis, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. It offers some context for usage but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true. The description adds that it returns documentation and examples, but no contradictions.
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?
Concise yet comprehensive; includes a well-structured quick guide. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all necessary context: what the tool does, valid inputs, and differentiation from siblings. Output schema exists, so return values are covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description lists valid tool_name values and explains their purpose, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states it provides documentation for any tool, listing valid tool_name values and differentiating sibling tools in a quick guide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly specifies when to call this tool (when needing full parameter reference or usage examples) and provides a quick guide for using sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds extensive behavioral context: it explains rate limiting for batch, stealth mode for bot bypass, default and max values for depth and max_pages, conversion of local files, structured extraction with LLM, multi-step research (agent), and page interaction (interact). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but well-structured with sections: overall purpose, list of actions with examples, key parameters, and a note to use help. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence is informative, though some details could be condensed. Given the tool's complexity, the length is justified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, 8 actions), the description is fairly complete. It covers all actions, key parameters, defaults, and constraints. Since there is an output schema, it does not need to describe return values in detail. It also addresses the openWorldHint by explaining that responses can vary (e.g., depending on URL content).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It lists 'Key parameters' and explains which parameters are required for each action (e.g., urls for extract, paths for convert). It also describes the format for interact actions and defaults for many parameters. However, a few parameters like 'prompt' are not detailed, and not every parameter is explicitly mentioned.
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 clearly states 'Read and return full page content from URLs or local files', specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'search' tool by saying 'For finding URLs first, use the `search` tool instead.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when you have a specific URL and need its content.' It also contrasts with the `search` tool for finding URLs. Additionally, it breaks down multiple actions (extract, batch, crawl, etc.) with examples, helping the agent choose the right action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that search returns listings not full content, mentions latency for `enrich` parameter, and aligns with annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world). Adds context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with action sections and parameter descriptions, but lengthy. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Front-loaded with main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 15 parameters and multiple actions, the description thoroughly covers all modes, parameters, and examples. Output schema exists, but description already explains return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each key parameter (query, library, language, expand, enrich, max_results, etc.) with examples, providing essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool finds information across web, academic, or library docs, and lists specific actions with examples. It distinguishes from sibling tool `extract` by noting that search returns listings not full content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly explains when to use each action (e.g., research for academic, docs for library) and directs users to `extract` for full page content, providing clear alternatives.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-wet MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/expandingideas-ai/mcp-wet/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/expandingideas-ai/mcp-wet)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-wet MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/expandingideas-ai/mcp-wet/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/expandingideas-ai/mcp-wet)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/expandingideas-ai/mcp-wet'

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