Convert raw HTML into clean markdown, plain text, or formatted output. Control links, images, and readability to extract readable content from scraped pages.
Transform HTML content to clean markdown, text, or formatted output
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| clean | No | ||
| readability | No | ||
| include_links | No | ||
| return_format | Yes | ||
| include_images | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only the transformation targets. It does not state that this is a pure, side-effect-free operation, nor does it explain what 'clean', 'readability', or 'formatted output' actually do to the input.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the coverage gaps rather than a deliberate trade-off.
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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain transformation behavior and the optional flags. Instead it only restates the high-level purpose, leaving the agent with no guidance on how the options interact or what the result looks like.
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 description coverage is reported at 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It mentions markdown and text (partially mapping to return_format) but says nothing about the other options (raw, clean_html) or the clean/readability/include_links/include_images toggles.
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 ('Transform'), a specific resource ('HTML content'), and names the output target formats (markdown, text, formatted output). An agent can tell it is a conversion utility, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like spider_scrape or spider_crawl.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when it should not be used. The agent must infer that this is for post-scrape content conversion rather than retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.