Retrieve a web page's content from a given URL to inspect, parse, or process it through a governed MCP proxy.
Fetches a web page.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "fetch_page"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about redirects, timeouts, authentication, truncation/size limits, JavaScript rendering, or what form the returned content takes (HTML, markdown, plain text). At best the verb 'Fetches' weakly implies a non-mutating read.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but that is because it says almost nothing. Brevity here is under-specification rather than efficient structure.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of behavioral and parameter information, and it supplies none of it. For a network-facing fetch tool this leaves the agent unable to predict cost, failure modes, or return format.
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 has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not: it never states that the URL should be absolute, whether http/https schemes are required, or that url is effectively required despite required=0. The word 'web' is the only weak hint about acceptable values.
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 'Fetches a web page' essentially restates the tool name fetch_page and adds only the word 'web'. It gives no scope (single page vs. whole site), no content-type expectation, and no differentiation from the note-related siblings.
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 exclusions (e.g., not for local files or for the note tools read_note/delete_note), and no stated prerequisites such as needing an absolute http(s) URL or network access. The agent must infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.