Skip to main content
Glama

Social Fetch

by io.github.social-freak-ltd

Extract structured data from a web page

web_extract_run
Read-only

Extract structured fields from a web page using a CSS selector schema. Accepts a URL and CSS schema.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesWeb page URL to fetch.
schemaYesCrawl4AI JsonCssExtractionStrategy schema: baseSelector plus fields.
contextYesDescribe the user's underlying goal in one sentence — not the tool you are calling.
waitForNoWait for a CSS selector before extraction. Must be prefixed with "css:" (e.g. css:main). JavaScript wait conditions are not supported.
llm_modelYesThe exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.
scanFullPageNoWhen true, scroll the page to load dynamically appended content.
conversation_idNoEcho the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence — not the tool you are calling.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Echo the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / llm_model
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. \"claude-opus-4-8\", \"gpt-5.2\"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass \"unknown\" — never guess.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "url",
-  "schema"
-]New value: +[
+  "url",
+  "schema",
+  "context",
+  "llm_model"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the CSS-schema extraction mechanism but does not describe fetching behavior, dynamic content handling, or result structure. 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the verb and outcome are front-loaded, and the mechanism is stated immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has a complex nested schema and no output schema, but the parameter descriptions are thorough. The description conveys the basic extraction purpose but leaves the return shape and behavioral edge cases implicit; annotations and rich schema partially compensate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'a URL and CSS schema' but does not add semantic detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('structured fields from a web page'), and pinpoints the mechanism ('CSS selector schema'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_html_generate, web_markdown_generate, or web_search_run.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Extract structured fields from a web page using a CSS selector schema' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The agent must infer the boundary between this and sibling extraction/search tools.

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

All Social Fetch 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).

Tool Count2/5

The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.

Resources