Retrieve every navigable hyperlink, anchor, and reference from a web page, with an option to return only same-domain links for focused internal analysis.
Extract all navigable hyperlinks, anchors, and references from a web page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target web page URL | |
| internal_only | No | Filter links to only those belonging to the same domain (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about network fetching, timeouts, rate limits, error behavior for unreachable pages, or whether JS-rendered links are captured. It only implies a read-only scrape, which is a significant disclosure gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in usage and behavioral detail.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the shape of the result (e.g., a list of link objects with absolute URLs, anchor text, and possibly internal/external flags) and how failures are surfaced. It covers purpose only, which is adequate but incomplete for a fetch-dependent 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%, with both 'url' and 'internal_only' fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra semantics such as URL format expectations or what 'same domain' means for subdomains.
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 pairs the specific verb 'extract' with a concrete resource: navigable hyperlinks, anchors, and references from a web page. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scrape_url or extract_metadata, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.
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 scrape_url or extract_metadata, and no stated preconditions. The agent must guess at the division of labor between the three siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.