Compress raw HTML into clean markdown and headings to fit more within RAG context windows.
Compress raw HTML to clean markdown & headings for RAG context windows
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | Raw HTML content to parse |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the transformation from HTML to markdown/headings, which is the core behavior. However, it does not disclose any limitations, error conditions, or performance characteristics, so it partially meets the need.
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, front-loaded sentence that is precise and free of filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'compress' indicates action, 'raw HTML' specifies input, 'clean markdown & headings' specifies output, and 'RAG context windows' clarifies purpose.
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 has a simple signature (one input, no output schema), and the description adequately covers what, why, and the output format. It does not mention edge cases or failure modes, but for a straightforward transformation tool, this is sufficient. A score of 5 would require explicit handling of malformed HTML or size limits, which may be unnecessary here.
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 schema has one parameter 'html' with a clear description 'Raw HTML content to parse', which covers 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'compress' (transform), the resource 'raw HTML', and the output 'clean markdown & headings' for the specific use case of 'RAG context windows'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like image_ocr_shrink or code_denoise, which have different input types and purposes.
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 provides clear context: it is for converting raw HTML to markdown/headings for RAG context windows. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is evident, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.