Fetch one URL with optional verified exit country or city, browser rendering, screenshot, or CSS readiness selector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| city | No | ||
| mode | No | http | |
| output | No | markdown | |
| country | No | ||
| wait_for | No | ||
| screenshot | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "City",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / countryAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Country",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / modeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "http",
+ "title": "Mode",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / screenshotAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Screenshot",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / wait_forAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Wait For",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention optional proxy location, browser rendering, screenshots, and CSS wait conditions, which gives some insight. However, it does not explain the default output format, whether the tool returns raw HTML or markdown, or any rate limits/error behavior, leaving notable gaps.
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 efficiently packs the core action and all major optional features. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main capabilities but omits important details like parameter meanings for mode/output, default behaviors, and potential side effects. It is adequate but not thorough for a tool of this complexity.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for country/city (verified exit), wait_for (CSS readiness selector), and screenshot, but leaves mode and output completely unexplained. The mapping between description terms and parameters is partial, so it does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 one URL and lists optional capabilities (verified exit country/city, browser rendering, screenshot, CSS readiness selector). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like service_status and usage, which deal with monitoring and usage rather than scraping.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. This is a lack of explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: scrape performs the core action, service_status reports server health, and usage tracks client quotas. There is zero overlap in their functions.
All tool names are single lowercase words following the same simple pattern. While not verb_noun, the naming is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is minimal but well-scoped for this niche VPN proxy service. Each tool is necessary and earns its place without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers the primary scraping action, plus service status and usage tracking for operational awareness. A minor gap is lack of finer-grained proxy management, but the core domain is fully addressed.