Universal Web Retrieval MCP

web_fetch

Convert one URL or up to five URLs into Markdown page content in a single call, with automatic provider failover and keyless or keyed auth, so agents retrieve web pages reliably.

Instructions

Fetch one URL's page content as Markdown with automatic provider failover (AnySearch -> Tavily -> DDGS.extract). Auth is automatic (keyed when a key is configured, else official keyless). Accepts a single url string, or urls array (max 5) for batch. Returns JSON array of {url, content, title, content_type, provider, mode, latency_ms} — failed URLs carry an error field instead. Note: JS-rendered, login-walled or CAPTCHA-protected pages are not guaranteed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`urls`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the provider failover chain (AnySearch -> Tavily -> DDGS.extract), automatic/keyless auth behavior, batch limits, the return field set, the error-field failure mode, and JS/ CAPTCHA limitations.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers failover, auth, parameter modes, and limitations in tight sentences. No filler and no repetition of the schema beyond useful clarification.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Even though an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description still names the response shape and error path, and covers auth, failover, and page-type limits. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains url as a single URL string and urls as a batch array capped at 5, clarifying the two parameters' roles. It does not explain defaults or the interaction when both are supplied, keeping it out of 5.

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 one URL's page content as Markdown'), which is clearly separable from the web_search sibling in practice. It never names web_search explicitly, so the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated, holding it below a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear usage context: single url string or a urls array for batch up to 5, plus a note on what kinds of pages are not guaranteed. There is no explicit 'use web_search instead when...' exclusion, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server