Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Windows Developer MCP Server

Windows Developer MCP Server

by peeyushcodes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

extract_text

Fetch a web page and extract clean, human-readable text by stripping HTML, script, and style tags. Use it to get article content without markup.

Instructions

Fetch a web page and extract human-readable body text.

Strips script, style, and HTML markup tags to produce clean text.

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": "extract_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to extract text from.
max_charsNoMaximum characters of text to return (default: 10000).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses that script, style, and HTML tags are stripped, which is key behavioral information. It doesn't discuss error handling or redirects, but for a simple read tool, it provides sufficient transparency.

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, first states purpose, second explains the stripping behavior. No unnecessary words, front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With a simple 2-param tool and an output schema present, the description covers the core functionality. It doesn't need to detail return values due to output schema. Complete for its complexity.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what schema provides; baseline 3 due to 100% coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Fetch', 'extract') and resource ('web page', 'body text'). It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_page or http_get by specifying the extraction of human-readable text and stripping of markup.

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?

Description implies usage: when you need clean text from a web page. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria like 'use fetch_page for raw HTML'. Clear context but no exclusions, so score 4.

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