Skip to main content
Glama
radoxtech

DeepSeek Search Everywhere MCP

by radoxtech

deepseek_fetch_many

Fetch up to 10 known URLs concurrently and return each page's title and Markdown content, with per-URL error handling and shared content limits.

Instructions

Fetch up to 10 known URLs concurrently and return each page's title and Markdown content.

Each URL goes through the same validation, cache, rate limiter and SSRF checks as deepseek_fetch. Empty entries are skipped and duplicates (same canonical URL) are fetched once. Results keep the input order; a failing URL yields an item with ok=false and an error instead of failing the batch. All fetches share one deadline (120 s by default); URLs still pending then are cancelled and reported with error code deadline_exceeded.

Each page gets min(max_chars_per_url, max_total_chars // count) characters and the total content never exceeds max_total_chars; a note says when any content was truncated. The envelope reports count (unique URLs), requests_used (upstream fetches attempted), cached_count (items served from the cache), failed_count (items with ok=false), partial (true when any item failed), results and notes. The top-level ok only says the batch ran; check partial or each item's ok for per-URL failures. Each result carries its own cached flag.

Args: urls: 1-10 absolute http(s) URLs, max 8192 characters each. max_chars_per_url: Content cap per page, applied after cleaning. max_total_chars: Total content budget across all pages. clean: Remove DeepSeek's spurious Markdown escaping (# at line start, , etc.). refresh: Bypass the response cache and fetch every page again.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYes
cleanNo
refreshNo
max_total_charsNo
max_chars_per_urlNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: shared 120s deadline, cancellation with deadline_exceeded, per-URL failure isolation, duplicate/empty handling, cache interaction, and the top-level ok vs partial distinction. That last point in particular prevents a real misread of batch success.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with capability, then behavior, then Args – a sound structure with little waste. The paragraph enumerating every envelope field is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which is the only thing keeping this below a 5.

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?

For a 5-parameter concurrent batch tool with no annotations, this covers the edge cases an agent must reason about: partial failure, deadline truncation, truncation notes, and per-item cache flags. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the Args block gives meaning to all five parameters: the 1-10 / 8192-char URL bounds, the purpose of max_chars_per_url and max_total_chars, and what clean and refresh actually change. The allocation formula min(max_chars_per_url, max_total_chars // count) is semantics the schema cannot express at all.

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?

States a specific verb, resource, and cardinality bound ('Fetch up to 10 known URLs concurrently') plus the return shape (page title and Markdown content). The 'known URLs' phrasing and the explicit reference to deepseek_fetch's validation pipeline make the boundary with the single-URL sibling clear.

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?

'Known URLs' implicitly steers the agent away from this tool for discovery (deepseek_web_search/deepseek_research), and the deepseek_fetch reference establishes the shared pipeline. However, it never states explicitly when to pick this over calling deepseek_fetch repeatedly, leaving that inference to the reader.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.