Fetch a URL and extract clean text, Markdown, article body, tables, or links for web reading, content extraction, and link collection.
一键抓取一个 URL，返回干净文本/Markdown/正文/表格/链接。适合：读网页内容、取正文、找表格、收集链接。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 目标网址（http/https） | |
| links | No | 同时返回页面里的链接（默认 false） | |
| proxy | No | 代理地址（可选） | |
| table | No | 提取页面里的表格为 JSON（默认 false） | |
| article | No | 只提取正文（默认 false） | |
| browser | No | 是否用浏览器渲染 JS 页面（默认 false） | |
| selector | No | CSS 选择器，只返回匹配内容（如 h1、.content） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It describes output formats and use cases, but omits important scraping behavior such as rate limits, authentication needs, anti-bot handling, failure modes, and when JS rendering is required.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and output formats, followed by concrete use cases. Every phrase contributes to helping the agent understand the tool without unnecessary length.
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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It lists possible return content types, but does not explain the response structure, errors, or when specific options like selector, proxy, or browser should be used.
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 already documents all seven parameters. The description adds only a high-level output summary and does not provide additional syntax or semantics beyond the schema baseline.
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 states a specific verb and resource: scrape a single URL, returning clean text/Markdown/article/tables/links. This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as crawl, bulk_scrape, or extract.
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?
It lists clear usage contexts: reading webpage content, extracting article text, finding tables, and collecting links. However, it gives no exclusions or explicit guidance on when to prefer crawl, bulk_scrape, screenshot, or extract instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.