Skip to main content
Glama
asdfas988

markfetch-mcp

by asdfas988
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

markfetch-mcp

MCP server for Markfetch — let Claude, Cursor, or any MCP client read any web page as clean markdown or screenshot it, with one line of config.

Built for AI agents: turn a URL into LLM-ready context in one tool call.

Install

Add to your MCP client config (Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, …):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "markfetch": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "markfetch-mcp"],
      "env": { "MARKFETCH_API_KEY": "rk_your_key" }
    }
  }
}

No key? It works out of the box on the public rate-limited demo. Get a free key (500 requests/mo, no card) at https://markfetch.com.

Related MCP server: HatFetch

Tools

Tool

What it does

scrape_url(url)

Fetches the page (real Chromium, waits for it to render) and returns the main content as clean, LLM-ready markdown.

screenshot_url(url)

Returns a PNG screenshot of the page.

Env

  • MARKFETCH_API_KEY — your key (optional; falls back to the demo tier).

  • MARKFETCH_API_BASE — override the API base URL.

MIT licensed.

Available Tools

2 tools
scrape_urlA

Fetch a web page and return its main content as clean, LLM-ready markdown. Use this to give the model the content of a URL.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe web page URL to read

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention that the tool returns 'main content' and 'clean, LLM-ready markdown,' which gives insight into its extraction and formatting behavior. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., JavaScript-rendered pages, access restrictions, or handling of non-HTML content), leaving some behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise, containing two short sentences that front-load the primary function and output format. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail; every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The only gap is lack of explicit differentiation from the sibling screenshot_url, but for a simple, single-purpose tool, the description provides sufficient context.

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?

The input schema already provides a complete description for the single parameter 'url' ('The web page URL to read'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantics for this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is warranted.

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 uses specific language: 'Fetch a web page and return its main content as clean, LLM-ready markdown.' This clearly states the verb (fetch), resource (web page), and output (main content as markdown), distinguishing it from the sibling screenshot_url which captures visual images rather than textual content.

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 phrase 'Use this to give the model the content of a URL' provides explicit usage context, indicating when the tool should be invoked. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for visual layouts use screenshot_url'), so it lacks full contrast. Since usage is explicitly called out, a 4 is appropriate.

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

screenshot_urlB

Capture a screenshot of a web page as a PNG image.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe web page URL to screenshot

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the output format (PNG). It does not cover rendering behavior, page load handling, viewport settings, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is concise, front-loaded, and 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 description is minimally viable for a simple one-parameter tool, covering purpose and output format. However, it lacks behavioral context such as usage alternatives, rendering specifics, and potential limitations, making it less complete than it could be.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'url' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool captures a screenshot of a web page as a PNG image. The verb 'Capture' and resource 'screenshot of a web page' are specific, and the mention of PNG distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'scrape_url'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'scrape_url'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about when it is appropriate.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedscrape_url
    • First observedscreenshot_url
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct output format and purpose: one returns clean markdown content, the other a PNG screenshot. While both accept a URL, there is no ambiguity about which to use based on the desired result.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow the verb_noun pattern (scrape_url, screenshot_url), making the naming scheme predictable and consistent. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the server feels minimal but not unreasonable for its focused purpose. It is at the lower end of the typical range, so it is borderline but still acceptable.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the two primary ways to consume a web page—text content and visual capture. Minor potential additions like raw HTML or metadata extraction are absent, but these are not core to the stated markdown-focused purpose.

Maintenance

ActivityStale
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/asdfas988/markfetch-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server