Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gemini MCP Server

Gemini MCP Server

by salviz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

gemini_url_context

Analyze web content from one or more URLs. Provide a prompt; URLs in the prompt text are auto-detected and fetched for Gemini to read and respond.

Instructions

Analyze one or more URLs using Gemini URL context tool. Gemini fetches and reads the URLs directly.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "gemini_url_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsNoArray of URLs to analyze (optional)
modelNoModel name (default: gemini-3.1-pro-preview)
promptYesPrompt about the URL(s). URLs in the prompt text are also auto-detected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions direct fetching but omits important details like authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that makes network requests.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. However, lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullets) that could improve scanability for an agent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or how this tool compares to similar siblings. Incomplete for reliable agent use.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds useful info that URLs in the prompt are auto-detected, but does not enrich the other parameters beyond schema. Minimal added value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes one or more URLs using Gemini, with direct fetching. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like gemini_analyze_url, partially impacting clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools with similar names exist but are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.

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