webEmbedding

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect_url

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a public URL, read frame policy, metadata, and platform signals, then summarize whether the page can be embedded, sourced, or must be rebuilt before cloning.

Instructions

Inspect a URL before cloning: fetch it, read frame policy (X-Frame-Options/CSP), metadata, and platform signals, and summarize whether it can be embedded, sourced, or must be rebuilt.

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": "inspect_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) URL of the page to inspect, capture, or clone.
`timeout_seconds`	No	Timeout in seconds for the static HTTP fetch of the page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.13Nov 9, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds / description
```
Added value: +"Timeout in seconds for the static HTTP fetch of the page."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / url / description
```
Added value: +"Public http(s) URL of the page to inspect, capture, or clone."
```
First observedv0.3.12Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by naming the mechanism ('fetch it', static per the timeout param) and disclosing that header-level signals drive the verdict. It omits failure behavior, redirect/size handling, and latency expectations for an open-world network call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence that puts the workflow position ('before cloning') first and the deliverable verdict last. Dense but not padded; the parenthetical header names are justified because they define what 'frame policy' means.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return value as a three-way embeddability verdict. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior on fetch failure is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with only two parameters, and the schema already explains both the URL and the timeout for the static HTTP fetch. The description adds no format, validation, or default detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Inspect') on a specific resource ('a URL') and enumerates what is read: frame policy (X-Frame-Options/CSP), metadata, and platform signals. The stated output verdict (embeddable, sourceable, or must be rebuilt) distinguishes it from pure-fetch siblings like audit_reference_url, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Inspect a URL before cloning' implies the point in the workflow where this belongs, which is useful context. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which of the many neighbors (audit_reference_url, classify_clone_mode, discover_embed_candidates, trace_runtime_sources) to prefer for overlapping questions.

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