Read a web page and return its main content as Markdown without saving it, keeping tables, code blocks, and images intact.
Fetch a web page and return its main content as Markdown, without saving it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The http(s) URL to read. | |
| max_chars | No | Cut the Markdown off after this many characters. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches and converts to Markdown without saving, but doesn't mention potential limitations such as handling of paywalls, authentication, rate limits, or the fact that only main content is extracted (implying some content may be omitted). The presence of an output schema means return format details are covered, but operational behavior remains underspecified.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a key differentiator. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It covers the main purpose and the no-save behavior. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this versus similar tools, but for a straightforward fetch operation this is acceptable.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (url and max_chars). The description adds no further parameter details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a web page'), and specifies the transformation ('return its main content as Markdown'). The contrast with sibling 'save_markdown' is evident from the phrase 'without saving it', making it unambiguous.
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?
The description implicitly differentiates from 'save_markdown' by stating 'without saving it', which tells the agent this tool is for when the content is needed temporarily or for processing. However, it doesn't provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention alternatives like 'crawl_docs'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.