Fetch a webpage's full content and strip HTML tags to get clean text for analysis or processing.
Fetch the full content of a webpage.
This function retrieves the content of a webpage and removes HTML tags.
Args:
link (str): The URL of the webpage to fetch.
Returns:
str: The full content of the webpage with HTML tags removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add behavioral context by explicitly stating that HTML tags are removed and that the return value is a string. However, it does not disclose behavior around redirects, encoding, errors, or non-HTML content, which are relevant for a web-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?
The description is short and uses a clear Args/Returns structure, but it is redundant: 'Fetch the full content of a webpage' and 'retrieves the content of a webpage and removes HTML tags' largely repeat the same idea. This redundancy and the repetition in the Returns section prevent a higher score.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return value sufficiently. It does not describe potential failures or limitations, but none are critical for basic invocation.
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?
The input schema only labels the parameter as 'Link' with no description, so the description must supply meaning. It does so by stating link is 'The URL of the webpage to fetch,' which is sufficient for this single-parameter tool, though it omits details like expected URL formats.
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 tool fetches webpage content and removes HTML tags. It uses specific verbs ('Fetch', 'retrieves') and a clear resource ('content of a webpage'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
There are no sibling tools listed, so no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is possible. Usage context is implied by the description and function name, but the description does not clarify edge cases like pages requiring authentication or JavaScript rendering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.