MCP Web Fetch Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: fetching URLs (single, batch, metadata, links, search, summarize) and local file operations (list, read, write). No overlap between tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case. The one minor inconsistency is 'fetch_metadata_tool' which includes an unnecessary 'tool' suffix, but otherwise naming is consistent.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is appropriate for a web fetch server that also includes local file capabilities. Not too many, not too few.
Completeness4/5
Web fetching covers single, batch, metadata, links, search, and summarize. Local file ops cover list, read, write but lack a delete tool. Minor gap.
Average 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds that it extracts specific content (links and images), but does not disclose further behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or the potential for large payloads.
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 a single, succinct sentence that conveys the essential action and output. There is no extraneous text, and every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose but lacks usage guidance and parameter details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, so the description is minimally complete for a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to explain the two parameters. It does not clarify that 'url' is the target page and 'max_links' limits the number of extracted links, nor any constraints or formats. The parameter semantics are entirely absent.
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 explicitly states the action (fetch and extract), the resource (a URL page), and the output (links and images as a list). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fetch_url' (likely raw content) or 'batch_fetch' (multiple URLs).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'batch_fetch' for multiple URLs or 'fetch_metadata_tool' for metadata. The description does not mention preconditions, alternatives, or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond specifying the HEAD request method. No mention of potential errors or HTTP status handling.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Return'), no wasted words. Highly efficient.
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 simple tool with an output schema, the description is arguably sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., valid URL) and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning to the 'url' parameter, such as format, constraints, or example. It only loosely mentions 'URL' in the description.
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 states specifically that it returns HTTP metadata using a HEAD request, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_url (full content) or summarize_url.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies using this tool when only metadata is needed without downloading the body, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use it, nor mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses concurrent execution, 10 URL limit, and read-only behavior (consistent with readOnlyHint annotation). It also mentions error handling per URL. Missing details on max_length truncation and robots.txt respect, but overall provides useful behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with key constraints. Every word is necessary and clear. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core function and constraints but omits parameter effects (max_length, ignore_robots_txt). Given the output schema may define return format, the description is adequate for basic tool selection but not fully complete for invocation without parameter explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameter meaning, but it only mentions 'public URLs'. It does not describe max_length (content size limit) or ignore_robots_txt (robots.txt bypass). The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description.
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 tool fetches up to 10 public URLs concurrently and returns content or error per URL. This specifies verb, resource, limit, concurrency, and return type, differentiating it from siblings like fetch_url (single).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for batch fetching multiple public URLs, contrasting with single fetch. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions (e.g., private URLs), or alternatives like web_search or fetch_metadata_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds that it returns markdown and can handle pagination with start_index. It does not contradict annotations. Some behavioral details like ignore_robots_txt implications are not explained, but overall adequate.
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, front-loaded with the core function, and contains no fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With 5 parameters, an output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too brief. It fails to explain most parameters (raw, max_length, ignore_robots_txt) and does not mention output format or behavior beyond chunking. The agent would need to infer or experiment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Only start_index is mentioned (for chunking). Other parameters (raw, max_length, ignore_robots_txt) are not explained, leaving the agent uncertain about their effects. This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.
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 (Fetch), the resource (public HTTP/HTTPS URL), and the output (page content as markdown). It also mentions chunking with start_index, distinguishing it from siblings like summarize_url or batch_fetch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on using start_index for long pages. However, it does not explicitly tell when not to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_fetch or summarize_url, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the dependency on MCP sampling for summarization, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details about error handling, authentication, or side effects beyond fetching.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and purpose. No redundant or tangential information.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not leverage it to explain return values. It also lacks details on how optional parameters affect behavior, leaving users guessing about their function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only mentions 'url' implicitly but does not explain 'focus' or 'max_length'. For a tool with 3 parameters, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 'fetch' and 'summarize' with the resource 'URL'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_url and extract_links by specifying the summarization action via client sampling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit directive: requires client with sampling capability, and suggests fallback using fetch_url and manual summarization. This clearly differentiates from alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds value by clarifying the tool operates within allowed local directories and that an empty path lists the root. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter detail. No redundant information. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given a simple tool with one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotation, the description covers the essential: purpose, scope, and parameter behavior. It does not elaborate on error handling or return format, but the output schema covers the latter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the single parameter 'path' meaning and behavior (empty defaults to root). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.
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 tool lists directory contents and specifies it operates within allowed local directories. The 'Leave path empty to list the root itself' adds further precision. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (file content) and fetch_url (remote URLs).
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_file, write_file). The description does not mention prerequisites or contexts where the tool should or should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that if overwrite=false and the file exists, the user will be asked to confirm, which is useful context beyond the annotation flags.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic operation and overwrite behavior, but lacks details on path format, content encoding, or error handling. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required, but more context on input constraints would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only explains the overwrite parameter behavior. Path and content parameters lack any description of format, constraints, or examples.
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 tool writes text content to a file within an allowed local directory, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_file and list_dir.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when overwrite=false triggers user confirmation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_fetch (which fetches from URLs). However, the context of writing local files is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the tool uses DuckDuckGo (no API key required) with an automatic fallback to a local SearXNG instance, which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention rate limits or result freshness, but the core behavior is well disclosed.
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 long, front-loading the primary function in the first sentence and adding a crucial fallback detail in the second. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to process.
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?
The description covers the core action, output components (titles, URLs, snippets), and fallback behavior. However, it omits mention of result count limit, caching, or error handling. Given the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete but could optionally address these points.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description adds no meaning to parameters beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'query' or 'max_results' entail, nor their expected format. The description mentions 'top matches' but does not link it to the max_results parameter.
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 tool 'Search the web' via DuckDuckGo and returns titles, URLs, and snippets. It uniquely identifies the resource (web) and action (search), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_url or batch_fetch that handle individual URLs or file operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for general web search queries and mentions a fallback mechanism, but does not explicitly specify when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to siblings. The context from sibling names helps, but the guideline is not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that path is relative and directories are allowed, but doesn't disclose file size limits, encoding, or error behavior. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Purpose and key constraint are front-loaded.
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?
Tool has simple input and output schema. Description covers purpose and path constraint. With output schema existing, return type is handled there. Minor omission: no mention of allowed file types or size limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description adds critical meaning: 'Path is relative to the allowed directory.' This compensates well, though lacks examples.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Read' and resource 'text file from allowed local directory'. Distinguishes from siblings like fetch_url and write_file by specifying local file reading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes when to use (reading text files from allowed directories) and context about configuration (FETCH_LOCAL_FILES_ROOT, client roots). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-fetch-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/narimanamiri/mcp-fetch-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/narimanamiri/mcp-fetch-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-fetch-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/narimanamiri/mcp-fetch-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/narimanamiri/mcp-fetch-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/narimanamiri/mcp-fetch-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server