Retrieve a single HTTP or HTTPS page and return its title and Markdown content for reading or processing.
Fetch one HTTP or HTTPS page and return its title and Markdown content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | HTTP or HTTPS URL to fetch (maximum 8192 characters). |
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 disclosure burden. It does disclose the return shape (title + Markdown), which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about authentication, redirects, rate limits, non-HTML responses, truncation of large pages, or failure behavior.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the returned content. Nothing redundant or padded.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (title and Markdown content). What remains missing is failure/edge-case behavior — non-HTML content, oversized pages, or blocked requests — which a fetch tool would benefit from.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the URL requirement and the 8192-character cap. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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?
States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one HTTP/HTTPS page) plus the return payload (title and Markdown content). The scope word 'one' usefully signals it is not a crawler or multi-page operation, though it never references the sibling 'search' to sharpen the boundary.
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?
No when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of when a caller should prefer the sibling 'search' instead. The word 'one' implies a single-URL use case but that is inference, not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.