docs-search-mcp

fetch_url

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch public web pages as markdown or raw text with robots.txt and private-address safeguards; paginate long pages using a start index.

Instructions

Fetch a public web page and return it as markdown (or raw text). Honors robots.txt and refuses private/internal addresses. Long pages: pass next_start_index as start_index.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "fetch_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	No
`url`	Yes
`max_length`	No
`start_index`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: robots.txt compliance, refusal of private/internal addresses, and a pagination convention for long pages. It stops short of mentioning rate limits, timeouts, or error modes.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output format, then constraints, then the pagination hint. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description correctly compensates by stating the return format (markdown/raw text). Combined with the constraint disclosure and pagination guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains the raw flag ('or raw text') and the start_index pagination parameter explicitly, which is meaningful added value; only max_length goes unexplained, though its name and default are largely self-describing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (public web page) plus the return format (markdown or raw text). No sibling tool overlaps, so no differentiation is needed, and an agent can immediately tell what this does.

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 operating context and constraints (honors robots.txt, refuses private/internal addresses) and hints at the pagination workflow for long pages. It doesn't name explicit alternatives, but no sibling tool is a plausible substitute, so there is little to exclude.

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

Deploy Server