Skip to main content
Glama
yantrix-ai

@praveen030686/data-apis-mcp

by yantrix-ai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

AI Page Summary

web_extract_ai_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract content from any URL and generate Claude AI-powered summaries for quick information retrieval and analysis.

Instructions

Extract content from any URL and get a Claude AI-powered summary. Costs $0.15 USDC per request via x402 on Base.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to summarize

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:423-438 (handler)
    The registration and handler for the web_extract_ai_summary tool. It uses apiPost to call the external service for AI summary extraction.
    server.registerTool(
  "web_extract_ai_summary",
  {
    title: "AI Page Summary",
    description: `Extract content from any URL and get a Claude AI-powered summary.
Costs $0.15 USDC per request via x402 on Base.`,
    inputSchema: {
      url: z.string().url().describe("URL to summarize"),
    },
    annotations: { readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true },
  },
  async ({ url }) => {
    const data = await apiPost(`${WEB_EXTRACT_API}/api/v1/extract/ai-summary`, { url });
    return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2) }] };
  }
);

Tool Definition Quality

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable query. The description adds valuable context about cost ('Costs $0.15 USDC per request via x402 on Base'), which isn't captured in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, response format, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and cost. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff. It efficiently communicates key details without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (AI-powered summarization with a cost), annotations provide good behavioral hints, and the input schema is fully described. However, there's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., summary format or length). For a paid tool, more context on output or error cases would be helpful, but annotations cover safety aspects adequately.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., URL format constraints or examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extract content from any URL and get a Claude AI-powered summary.' It specifies the verb ('extract content' and 'get a summary'), resource ('any URL'), and method ('Claude AI-powered'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like web_extract_text or web_extract_structured, which may also extract content from URLs but without AI summarization.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a cost ('$0.15 USDC per request'), which might imply usage for paid summarization, but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over free or other extraction tools like web_extract_text. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are included.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yantrix-ai/x402-apis-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server