Fetch public web pages with safe URL handling and response validation to return citation-ready content for agent workflows.
Run the clean-room resilient public web fetch engine with safe URL handling, route accounting, response validation, and citation-ready output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http(s) URL to fetch. | |
| timeout | No | Optional fetch timeout such as 30s. | |
| max_chars | No | Optional maximum content characters returned. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral hints — 'safe URL handling' (suggesting SSRF-style restrictions), 'response validation', and 'citation-ready output' — but these remain undefined, with no mention of failure behavior, truncation, or what 'route accounting' actually does.
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?
It is a single sentence with no padding, which is structurally fine, but it front-loads the vague imperative 'Run' and spends its budget on marketing-style qualifiers ('clean-room', 'resilient', 'citation-ready') instead of concrete operational facts.
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 output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back, and 'citation-ready output' does not tell the agent whether it receives raw text, structured records, or truncated content. Given only three simple parameters and read-only annotations, this is adequate but leaves the return shape and error semantics underspecified.
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 url, timeout and max_chars each documented inline, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing about parameter behavior beyond the schema — for example whether timeout accepts only the '30s' string form or how max_chars interacts with truncation signaling.
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 identifies the domain ('public web fetch engine') but dresses it in internal jargon ('clean-room', 'route accounting') rather than stating plainly that it retrieves the contents of a public URL. An agent can infer the resource but not a crisp verb+resource pairing, and no sibling tool overlaps so the differentiation is irrelevant here.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of conditions (e.g. public http(s) only, no auth'd pages), and no exclusions or alternatives. None of the sibling tools do web fetching, so no routing is provided or needed, but the agent is left to infer the usage envelope entirely from the word 'public'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.