fetch_pageFetch a public web page and extract its readable text by stripping scripts and styles, enabling quick content checks before deeper analysis.
Fetch a public web page and return its readable text (scripts/styles stripped). Use for quick content checks before deeper analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public page URL (https://...) | |
| max_chars | No | Max characters of text to return (default 8000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and external-network behavior are covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail that returned text has scripts and styles stripped, but says nothing about failure modes, paywalls, redirects, rate limits, or whether content is truncated silently.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action and output form front-loaded, followed by a single usage cue. No wasted phrasing.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what the output looks like, and where it fits in a workflow. It lacks any note on error/empty results or truncation behavior, which would matter for an open-world fetch.
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%, so both url and max_chars are already documented with format and default. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (e.g., how truncation interacts with readability), so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (fetch a public web page) and specifies the output form (readable text with scripts/styles stripped). The phrase 'before deeper analysis' implicitly distinguishes it from the analysis-oriented siblings (extract_signals, extract_faqs), though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Gives clear context: use for quick content checks before deeper analysis, which positions it as the retrieval step preceding sibling tools. It does not name the alternatives outright or state when-not conditions (e.g., authenticated pages, non-HTML content), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.