Fetch complete MetaMask Embedded Wallets documentation by URL, sourcing from Algolia, llms.txt, and GitHub MDX for integration building.
Fetch the full content of a MetaMask Embedded Wallets documentation page by URL. Sources: Algolia, llms.txt, GitHub MDX.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | A docs.metamask.io URL, e.g. https://docs.metamask.io/embedded-wallets/sdk/react/ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by listing sources (Algolia, llms.txt, GitHub MDX) and specifying 'full content', but it does not disclose return format or potential errors. This is a moderate addition, consistent 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the core function and includes useful source information without any fluff. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and inputs. It lacks details like return format or error handling, but these are minor for a straightforward fetch operation and are not essential given the simplicity and annotations.
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?
The schema already describes the 'url' parameter with an example, and the description merely repeats 'by URL'. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional parameter meaning is provided beyond what the schema already offers.
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 ('Fetch'), resource ('documentation page'), and method ('by URL'), making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_docs or get_example, so it misses the full 5-point criteria.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when a URL is available, but it does not mention search_docs or other siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond having a URL.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.