MCP URL Fetcher
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| fetchC | Fetch content from a URL with automatic content type detection |
| fetch-jsonC | Fetch content from any URL and convert to JSON format |
| fetch-htmlB | Fetch content from any URL and convert to HTML format |
| fetch-markdownA | Fetch content from any URL and convert to Markdown format |
| fetch-textC | Fetch content from any URL and convert to plain text format |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| recent-urls |
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
The tools have significant overlap in purpose, as all fetch content from URLs, differing only in output format. An agent could easily misselect between fetch-html, fetch-json, fetch-markdown, and fetch-text, since the descriptions don't clarify when to use one format over another. The generic 'fetch' tool with automatic detection further confuses boundaries, as it might duplicate or conflict with the format-specific tools.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb-noun pattern throughout, with all tools using 'fetch' as the verb followed by a hyphen and format descriptor (e.g., fetch-html, fetch-json). There are no deviations in style or convention, making the naming predictable and easy to parse for an agent.
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable for a URL fetching server, but it feels borderline due to redundancy. The tools could potentially be consolidated into fewer, more flexible tools (e.g., a single fetch tool with a format parameter), making the current set feel slightly over-specified for the simple domain of fetching URLs.
For the domain of fetching URL content, the tool set is nearly complete, covering automatic detection and common output formats (HTML, JSON, Markdown, plain text). A minor gap exists in handling errors or advanced configurations (e.g., headers, timeouts), but agents can likely work around this with the provided tools for basic fetching tasks.