Fetches the HTML source of google.com or a specified URL and saves it to a local file for further processing.
Connects to google.com, fetches the HTML source of the page, and stores it in C:\Users\hiren\Documents\mcpserver\mcp01
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Optional URL to fetch (defaults to 'https://www.google.com') | https://www.google.com |
| filename | No | Optional output filename (defaults to 'google.html') | google.html |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: a file is written to a hardcoded local directory. However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior when the file already exists, permission or network failure handling, or whether the tool returns the path or page content.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the destination, with no filler. It could be tightened only by adding the missing behavioral detail rather than removing anything.
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?
For a two-optional-parameter write-side-effect tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core flow and destination but omits return value and overwrite semantics. That leaves a meaningful gap an agent would want before calling it repeatedly.
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 100% and both parameters are optional with documented defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about how 'url' interacts with the hardcoded destination path or how 'filename' changes the output location.
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 gives a specific verb chain (connects, fetches, stores) and a concrete resource (HTML source of google.com), so an agent can tell exactly what happens. It is slightly narrower than the schema, which allows an arbitrary URL, so the stated scope ('google.com') is more restrictive than the tool actually is.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named (though no siblings exist). The agent gets no signal about whether this is appropriate for scraping arbitrary pages or only for this one fixed target.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.