fetch_pageExtract clean article content from any webpage by removing ads, navigation, and sidebars, and convert it to readable Markdown.
抓取网页正文，自动去广告/导航/侧边栏，输出干净 Markdown（trafilatura）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 目标网页 URL | |
| max_chars | No | 最大返回字符数，默认 8000，超长截断并标注 | |
| include_links | No | 是否保留 Markdown 链接，默认 true |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: it removes ads/navigation/sidebars and outputs clean Markdown, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, network requirements, or limitations (e.g., dynamic content). The description gives a reasonable overview but lacks depth for edge cases.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and output format. It includes the library name for specificity and contains no redundant words or filler. Every element earns its place.
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?
The tool is relatively simple, with three well-documented parameters and an output schema present. The description covers the core behavior (fetch and clean) but omits important operational details such as how the tool handles unreachable pages, timeouts, or non-HTML content. Given the absence of annotations, this is a moderate gap in completeness.
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% — every parameter has a description in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only restates the tool's overall behavior. No extra semantic value is contributed, so the score stays at the baseline.
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?
The description clearly states the action (抓取网页正文), the resource (web page), and the output format (干净 Markdown), with a specific mention of the library used (trafilatura). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like web_search (searching) and fetch_hot_topics (lists) by focusing on fetching a single page and cleaning it.
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 description implies the tool is for fetching a specific URL and cleaning it, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like parse_pdf or web_search. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.