Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-red-web-utils

mcp-red-web-utils

by hsharmanov02
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

metadata

Extracts a page's title, description, and Open Graph metadata from any URL, returning structured data agents can use for link previews, summaries, and content classification.

Instructions

Extract title/description/OG metadata from a URL (paid per call, USDC on Base via x402)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 usefully discloses that each call is paid via x402 in USDC on Base, which is important context lacking from the schema, but it omits failure handling, rate limits, fetch/redirect behavior, and what happens on non-HTML responses.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and resource, with the payment caveat in a compact parenthetical. Every element earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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?

For a simple one-parameter metadata extractor, the description conveys the core payload and the payment model. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about the returned metadata shape and error behavior to be fully self-contained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'url' parameter is only described as 'a URL'. The description adds no detail about supported schemes, URL normalization, redirects, or whether the URL must be publicly reachable.

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?

States a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('title/description/OG metadata') from a URL, so the operation is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like reader or links, but the metadata-scraping scope is narrow enough to be identifiable.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: call it with a URL to get page metadata. The parenthetical 'paid per call, USDC on Base via x402' flags a cost consideration that may affect when an agent chooses this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as reader or links.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools