Skip to main content
Glama
sachio222

54ch10-mcp

by sachio222
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Legacy: fetch → url.fetch

fetch
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve web page content from a public URL, converting it to markdown or plain text for analysis and processing.

Instructions

Legacy alias for url.fetch. Page extraction: GET https://54ch10.uk/v1/fetch?url= at $0.005. Prefer url.fetch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic http(s) URL.
formatNoOutput format.markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Previous value: -"Output format"New value: +"Output format."
    • changedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Previous value: -"Public http(s) URL"New value: +"Public http(s) URL."
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the HTTP method, endpoint, and pricing. It doesn't mention output format/limits, but the safety profile is covered by annotations and 'page extraction' gives the main behavior.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded deprecation warning, then endpoint and cost. Zero fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers purpose, routing, endpoint, method, cost dar. With full schema and annotations, enough to select/call, though no explicit output-shape description.

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%: both parameters have descriptions and format has an enum plus default. The description adds no per-parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3.

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 states exactly what the tool is: a legacy alias for url.fetch that performs page extraction via a GET request to a specific endpoint. This makes the operation clear despite the tool only being an alias.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

"Prefer url.fetch" is an explicit routing instruction that tells the agent to use the sibling instead of this tool. The first sentence also signals deprecated/legacy status, which is sufficient guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools