Skip to main content
Glama
ruandwrd

Web Fetch MCP Server

by ruandwrd
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct output format (raw HTML, plain text, markdown), so there is no ambiguity about which tool to use. The descriptions clearly differentiate the three fetch modes.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent pattern: fetch_webpage for raw HTML, fetch_webpage_text for text, and fetch_webpage_markdown for markdown. The suffix clearly indicates the output format, making the naming predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is well-scoped for a web fetching server, covering the three most common content formats without unnecessary redundancy. This is within the ideal range for a focused utility.

    Completeness5/5

    For the stated purpose of fetching webpages, the server covers raw HTML, clean text, and markdown, which are the primary output formats needed. There are no obvious missing operations for basic web content retrieval.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the basic function and does not mention potential side effects, redirects, timeouts, response format details, or error behavior. For a network operation, this lack of context is a significant gap.

    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?

    A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the action and the object, making it highly scannable.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe return values (though 'raw HTML content' implies them), error conditions, or how this tool compares to the sibling tools. The presence of siblings and lack of an output schema mean additional context would improve completeness.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaning that the result is raw HTML, which is somewhat beyond the schema's simple 'URL of the webpage', but it does not provide extra detail about location constraints or formatting of the URL parameter.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Fetches'), the resource ('raw HTML content of a webpage'), and the source ('from the given URL'). The phrase 'raw HTML' explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings fetch_webpage_text and fetch_webpage_markdown, making the purpose unambiguous.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage for situations needing raw HTML, as opposed to text or markdown, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Since sibling tools exist, this is a missed opportunity to guide selection.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that HTML tags are removed, but omits other important behaviors such as error handling, redirects, content limits, or network requirements, leaving significant gaps for a network-fetching tool.

    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?

    The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function without any wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    The description adequately covers the primary function and output for a simple one-parameter tool. However, without an output schema or annotations, and with sibling tools present but not differentiated, it lacks context about failure modes and decision criteria, making it only minimally complete.

    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 coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter, which is fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

    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?

    The description clearly identifies the tool's function: fetching a webpage and extracting clean text. It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'without HTML tags', which distinguishes it from raw HTML or markdown formats.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies use for obtaining clean text content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like fetch_webpage or fetch_webpage_markdown. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool converts the fetched webpage to markdown, which is a key transformation, and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error behavior, return format details, or any edge-case limitations, leaving some transparency gaps.

    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?

    The description is a single clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action and can be understood at a glance.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core function but omits usage guidance and return value specifics. While adequate for a minimal tool, the lack of annotations and explicit alternative references makes it only partially complete.

    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?

    The input schema has full coverage for the 'url' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool fetches a webpage and converts it to markdown, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools fetch_webpage and fetch_webpage_text, which likely return raw HTML and plain text respectively.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies the tool should be used when the user needs a webpage in markdown format, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the choice based on the tool name.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

web-fetch-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

web-fetch-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ruandwrd/web-fetch-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server