MCP Web Fetch Server

batch_fetch

Read-only

Fetch up to 10 public URLs concurrently and return each page's content or error in a single response.

Instructions

Fetch up to 10 public URLs concurrently and return each page's content (or error) in one response.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "batch_fetch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes
`max_length`	No
`ignore_robots_txt`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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.

Deploy Server