@true402.dev/mcp-server

web_extract

Fetch a web page and return clean readable text + light markdown + title/description/links. POST { url }; an unpaid request returns 402. Flat-priced per request.

Instructions

Fetch a web page and return clean readable text + light markdown + title/description/links. POST { url }; an unpaid request returns 402. Flat-priced per request. (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.005 USD (fixed).

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "web_extract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The page URL to extract (http/https)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.1Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing the paid x402/USDC payment flow, price, wallet requirement, and 402 failure mode. It does not cover other operational behavior such as content limits, JavaScript rendering, timeouts, or response truncation.

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?

The purpose and output are front-loaded, and the payment requirements are clearly stated. There is minor redundancy between 'Flat-priced per request' and 'Price: $0.005 USD (fixed)', but no major waste.

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?

For a one-parameter fetch/extract tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the returned content and the key payment prerequisite. It leaves some operational details unstated, but an agent has enough to understand and invoke the tool.

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 schema already fully documents the single url parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the HTTP method and URL payload shape but no additional semantic constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch a web page and return extracted text, markdown, title, description, and links. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby sibling tools such as link_preview or screenshot.

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 payment condition is explained, including that unpaid requests return 402 and a funded wallet is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like link_preview or screenshot. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than routed against siblings.

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