Parses HTML content and executes extraction operations to retrieve titles, metadata, links, images, tables, forms, scripts, styles, and custom query results.
Parse HTML with jsdom and execute DOM operations (query, attr, text, html, links, images, tables, forms, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | HTML content to parse | |
| operations | No | Array of operations to execute on the parsed DOM. If omitted, returns title and basic structure. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that HTML is parsed and DOM operations are executed, but does not disclose whether operations mutate the parsed document, what the return structure looks like, how multiple operations are aggregated, or how errors are handled. This is a significant gap for a tool with an operations array that can produce varied results.
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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists representative operations. There is no wasted text, and it communicates the general scope efficiently.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple operation types, optional operations array, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the output format, the meaning of 'returns title and basic structure' when operations are omitted, or how operation results are sequenced. The schema covers parameter names but not the behavioral contract of the tool.
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 the baseline is 3. The description enumerates operation types that overlap with the schema's enum, providing no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents. It does add a high-level 'etc.' but adds no genuine value for parameter understanding.
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 tool's verb ('Parse HTML with jsdom') and resource ('HTML'), and enumerates the operation categories it supports. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'scrape-dom', which likely has overlapping functionality, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring the boundary.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scrape-dom' or 'scrape'. The description lists operations but does not state prerequisites, expected use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess where this tool fits among its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.