fetch_textFetch a URL, strip out boilerplate, and get clean, LLM-ready text for analysis or training, handling up to 3 redirects.
Fetch URL, strip boilerplate, return LLM-ready text (<=3 redirects).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it strips boilerplate, produces LLM-ready text, and limits redirects to three. This gives the agent useful expectations about transformation and safety without contradicting the 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, transformation, output format, and a key constraint in under ten words. Every element earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and read-only annotations, so the description covers core purpose and transformation. However, it lacks alternatives guidance and parameter details, making it slightly incomplete for an agent deciding between similar fetch tools.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain max_chars or timeout_seconds behavior. While the URL parameter is obvious, the truncation and timeout semantics are left entirely to inference from names and defaults.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch URL, strip boilerplate, return LLM-ready text') and includes a concrete constraint ('<=3 redirects'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like web_search and from raw HTTP tools like http_fetch.
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?
The description implies use for retrieving a URL's content as clean, LLM-ready text, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as browser_fetch or http_fetch. There is no exclusion guidance or mention of cases like JavaScript-heavy pages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.