Skip to main content
Glama

NanoParse MCP

by io.github.nanoparse-dev

nanoparse_fetch

Fetch a URL and return clean Markdown with Litmus (source authority, freshness, structural trust). First 10 free parses per network (subnet), then $0.01 per request via x402 micropayment — when the tool returns a payment_required error, sign the included payment_terms and retry with the payment_signature argument (works in every MCP client; no custom headers needed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to fetch and parse
payment_signatureNox402 payment signature — base64-encoded JSON payment terms. Only needed after the free tier is exhausted: the payment_required error response includes the payment_terms to sign. Pass the signed terms here (or as a Payment-Signature header if your client supports headers).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesArray of content items returned by the tool

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It candidly discloses the payment model, the error condition, the retry mechanism, and cross-client compatibility without custom headers. It does not detail every possible failure mode, but the core behavioral profile is well communicated.

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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every clause earns its place. The payment workflow is conveyed in one efficient sentence without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simple parameter surface, the existence of an output schema, and the detailed payment guidance, the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could briefly note what Litmus is, but the output schema likely covers that return-value detail.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context for payment_signature by explaining when it is needed, where the terms come from, and how to retry, going beyond the schema's standalone description.

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 fetches a URL and returns clean Markdown enriched with Litmus scoring, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling nanoparse_status, though its function is obviously distinct from a status-checking tool.

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?

The description provides clear operational guidance: free tier limits, per-request pricing, and the exact retry flow when payment_required is returned. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over nanoparse_status, but the fetch-vs-status distinction is strongly implied.

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

All NanoParse MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools are completely distinct: one fetches and parses URLs, the other checks payment and quota status. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools share a consistent prefix 'nanoparse_' followed by a clear verb ('fetch', 'status'). The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With only 2 tools, the server is minimal, but the narrow scope of URL fetching with payment status justifies a small surface. Still, it feels slightly thin for a service that involves payments and quota management.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is covered: check status, fetch URL with built-in payment handling. There is no dedicated payment/funding tool, but the fetch tool's integrated payment flow and status tool make the surface reasonably complete for its stated purpose.

Resources