Fetch a public URL and convert its HTML into a structural blueprint for storefront page analysis. Client-rendered pages may return limited content.
Fetch a public URL and parse it into a structural blueprint (see ingest_html). Note: client-rendered (React/Vue) pages may return little content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public page URL to analyse |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by warning that client-rendered React/Vue pages may return little content, which is a useful limitation an agent would not otherwise know.
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?
Two short clauses with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. The parenthetical pointer to ingest_html is efficient, though the sentence is somewhat terse.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the output form (via ingest_html reference), and a key limitation. Auth or failure behavior beyond the client-rendered caveat is not addressed, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Public page URL to analyse'. The description's 'public URL' phrasing is consistent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Fetch a public URL and parse it') and the output form ('structural blueprint'), and points to the related ingest_html tool. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not sharply differentiate itself from the sibling ingest_html beyond the reference.
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?
The phrase 'public URL' implies the usage scope and the note about client-rendered pages gives a when-it-fails caveat. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus ingest_html or other ingestion siblings, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.