Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ReviewWebsite MCP Server

ReviewWebsite MCP Server

by mrgoonie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scrape_url

Fetch HTML content from any URL via the ReviewWeb.site API. Optionally delay after page load to capture dynamic content.

Instructions

Scrape a URL and return HTML content using ReviewWeb.site API.

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": "scrape_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to scrape
delayAfterLoadNoOptional delay after page load in milliseconds
api_keyNoYour ReviewWebsite API key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, description must fully explain behavior. It only states scraping and returning HTML, omitting details like authentication (api_key), page load behavior (delayAfterLoad), rate limits, or whether JavaScript is rendered. The delayAfterLoad parameter hints at dynamic content, but not explicitly stated.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single sentence is concise but lacks structure such as front-loading key details. It is efficient but omits important context like authentication, making it somewhat under-specified.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, so description should explain return format. It states 'return HTML content' but lacks details on raw vs processed HTML, error handling, or pagination. Given 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal for full tool understanding.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; mentioning 'ReviewWeb.site API' indirectly explains the api_key parameter, but no further elaboration on url format or delayAfterLoad usage.

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?

Description clearly states it scrapes a URL and returns HTML content. Verb and resource are specific, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like convert_to_markdown or extract_data, which have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that for markdown output convert_to_markdown might be better, or that extract_data is for structured data.

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