Fetch a single web page and return its title and Markdown body, so you can read the full content behind a URL from search results.
抓取单个网页，返回页面标题与 Markdown 正文。适用于读取 web_search 结果中某个 URL 的完整内容。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 要抓取的网页地址，必须为含主机的 http/https URL，不允许携带用户名或密码 |
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 disclosure burden. It does state the return format (title + Markdown), but says nothing about auth, rate limits, JS-rendered pages, redirects, or failure behavior for a network-fetching tool.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the capability statement is front-loaded and the usage note follows immediately.
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 fetch with no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns at a high level. Error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed, but the core call contract is clear.
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 100% and there is a single param whose constraints (http/https, host required, no credentials) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter detail, so 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?
Cites a specific verb+resource (抓取单个网页) and explicitly states the return payload (页面标题与 Markdown 正文). It also names the sibling web_search and contrasts the scopes, so an agent can distinguish fetch-full-content from search.
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?
Gives clear context: use it to read the full content of a URL sourced from web_search results. This routes the agent to the right sibling, but stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when not to fetch, or non-HTML targets).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.