fetch_web_page
Fetch webpage content and convert it to clean Markdown.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
AgentBridge
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must account for behavioral recompensate. It discloses the core behavior: fetching a remote web page and transforming it to Markdown. However, it does not mention whether this is read-only, whether there are auth or rate-limit implications, or how failures are surfaced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded and free of noise. Every word earns its place. It could add one or two more sentences for behavioral context without becoming excessive, but as given the structure is tight.
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?
With a one-parameter schema and an output schema already describing return values, the description provides a baseline: fetch a URL and get reader Markdown. It is not fully complete because there is no guidance about constraints, prerequisites, or intended scenarios, but it suffices for a simple fetch tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter with no description coverage (0%), and the tool description does not explicitly clarify the meaning or format of the 'url' parameter. Although the parameter name is intuitive, the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap with any additional constraints.
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?
Specifically names the operation (fetch), the resource (webpage content), and the output format (clean Markdown), which makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from asset-related siblings. It doesn't explicitly reference a sibling or say which tool NOT to choose, but the target resource differs enough from 'asset' and 'status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no information about when to use this tool versus siblings such as fetch_asset, or when not to use it. The description is purely about what it does, leaving the decision of which tool to use to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a fairly distinct purpose: status, searching assets, fetching asset metadata, and converting web pages. The only potential confusion lies between fetch_asset and search_assets, but their descriptions clearly indicate one is for discovery and the other for metadata/payment retrieval.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming is mixed: agentbridge_status uses a server-prefix style, while the other three follow a clear fetch_/search_ verb_noun pattern. The verbs are readable, but agentbridge_status breaks the otherwise consistent convention.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is appropriate for a focused knowledge-asset server. There is no bloat, and each tool contributes to the core workflow of checking status, discovering assets, and retrieving asset metadata.
Completeness3/5
The surface covers status, search, and metadata retrieval, but notable gaps exist such as direct asset content access or purchase fulfillment. fetch_web_page feels tangential and does not fill this gap, leaving the asset lifecycle incomplete.