print_urlPrints the content of a publicly accessible webpage on a Memobird thermal printer. Use it for URLs that need no login or internal network access.
打印某个网页的内容（由咕咕机服务端抓取渲染）。
URL 必须公网可访问，内网地址、需要登录的页面打不出来。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 目标网页地址 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the important trait that rendering happens server-side and that certain URL categories fail, which is genuinely useful. It does not describe what happens on fetch failure (error vs blank page), latency, or print sizing, leaving the mutation-side behavior thin.
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 sentences, zero filler, and the mechanism is front-loaded ahead of the failure constraint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what gets printed, who fetches it, and which URLs are rejected. Only error behavior and latency on failure are left unspecified, a minor gap for a tool this simple.
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?
The single url parameter is fully documented by the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds real semantics beyond it: the URL must be public-facing and must not require authentication. That constraint meaningfully sharpens how the parameter should be chosen, above the baseline for a fully documented single-parameter schema.
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: prints the content of a web page, and notes that the server side fetches and renders it. The siblings (print_text, print_image, print_mixed) make the domain obvious, but the description never names the closest alternative (print_text) to sharpen the boundary. The purpose is nonetheless unmistakable.
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 useful when-not conditions: the URL must be publicly reachable, and intranet addresses or pages requiring login will not print. It never explicitly routes the agent to print_text for plain text or print_image for image URLs, so the guidance is partial (constraints present, alternatives absent).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.