Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
smart-webfetch-mcp

smart-webfetch-mcp

by mathisto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

web_fetch_tables

Extract tables from any URL and convert them to markdown tables, handling table headers, body, colspan, and captions for structured data retrieval.

Instructions

Extract tables from a page and return as markdown tables. Handles thead/tbody, th/td cells, colspan, and captions.

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": "web_fetch_tables"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to extract tables from
table_indexNoSpecific table index to return (0-based). Returns all tables if not specified.
timeoutNoRequest timeout in seconds (default 30, max 120)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses handling of thead/tbody, th/td, colspan, and captions, but omits other behavioral traits such as error handling, redirect behavior, or what happens when no tables are found. It is adequate but has gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates key technical details.

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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview but lacks details on error handling, output structure, and edge cases. It is mostly complete but could be enhanced.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain or augment the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Extract tables' and the resource 'from a page', and specifies the output format 'markdown tables'. It distinguishes itself well from sibling tools that fetch other content types (chunked, code, links, section).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web_fetch_section or web_smart_fetch. It only describes what it does, lacking any explicit context for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools