Fetches a public HTTP(S) URL and extracts its main page content, so you can retrieve readable text from a specific web page for analysis or summarization.
Fetch and extract the main content of one public HTTP(S) web page.
Args: url: Absolute public HTTP or HTTPS URL to fetch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the target must be public and that content extraction strips to 'main content', but says nothing about redirects, JS rendering, auth-walled pages, truncation limits, or rate limits.
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 lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parameter constraint immediately following. No filler sentences.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the lack of routing guidance against two closely related siblings leaves a real gap for an agent choosing between web_fetch, web_search, and search_and_fetch.
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 schema only declares a bare string 'url' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does, specifying that the URL must be absolute, public, and HTTP(S), which narrows valid inputs meaningfully beyond the 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 ('fetch and extract') and resource ('main content of one public HTTP(S) web page'), and the phrase 'main content' distinguishes it from a raw-HTML scraper. It does not differentiate itself from the siblings web_search or search_and_fetch, so it falls short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus search_and_fetch, which also fetches pages, or web_search. The single-URL scope is only implied by 'one public HTTP(S) web page', leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.