Console output captured from the DESKTOP grid browser page (by pageId) since it opened, including page errors. Buffered from load — nothing is lost by asking late. NOT a device — for a real phone or tablet use android_devtools_console_logs or ios_safari_console_logs (by udid).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Case-insensitive substring filter, e.g. "error" | |
| pageId | Yes | Page ID from web_navigate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure and it adds valuable details: logs are buffered from page load, asking late loses nothing, and page errors are included. It does not describe return shape or permissions, but those are less critical for this read-oriented console log tool.
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?
Three concise sentences with no irrelevant detail: it front-loads what the tool returns, then explains buffering behavior, then gives device alternatives. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple log retrieval tool with no output schema, it explains the data scope, buffering semantics, and non-device limitation. The main missing detail is the exact return shape, but the content is described well enough for an agent to invoke and interpret it correctly.
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 input schema already documents both parameters fully, including 'Page ID from web_navigate' and 'Case-insensitive substring filter.' The description mostly restates 'by pageId' without adding extra parameter-level information, so it stays at the schema-coverage baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: captured console output from the DESKTOP grid browser page identified by pageId, including page errors. It clearly differentates this from device console tools by asserting 'NOT a device.'
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?
Explicitly tells the agent when to call late: 'Buffered from load — nothing is lost by asking late.' It also gives when-not-to-use and named alternatives: 'NOT a device — for a real phone or tablet use android_devtools_console_logs or ios_safari_console_logs (by udid).'
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.
The set contains near-identical duplicate families: web_* and playwright_* expose ~15 pairs of the same desktop-grid-browser operations (web_get_text/playwright_get_text, web_reload/playwright_reload), and screenshot/log/network/mock capabilities each have 5-8 entry points (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot vs ios_screenshot vs ios_fast_screenshot vs web_screenshot vs webpage_screenshot vs session_screenshot). Many individual descriptions carefully draw boundaries (devtools vs traffic, HID vs session), but an agent cannot reliably distinguish web_* from playwright_*, and ios_screenshot/ios_fast_screenshot/ios_mjpeg_screenshot blur together.
The prefix scheme is broken: Android functionality is split arbitrarily between android_* and device_* (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot), the desktop browser gets two parallel prefixes (web_* and playwright_*), and verbs vary across equivalents (device_navigate_url vs web_navigate vs ios_safari_navigate). session_* uses bare verbs (session_url, session_back), and the same concept gets different names (ios_clipboard_get_hid vs ios_get_pasteboard; device_screen vs ios_orientation).
333 tools is an extreme count by any measure — far beyond the 50+ threshold — and much of the bulk is duplicative (the web_*/playwright_* pairs alone double ~15 slots) or out-of-scope for a device-control server (TestRail, Jira, AzDO, agent memory, secret variables, feedback). Even granting that remote device control + test automation is a broad domain, this surface will devastate agent context budgets and is impossible to navigate coherently.
The core device-control and test-automation domain is remarkably thorough: Android and iOS each have full interaction, app-lifecycle, file, network/proxy, performance, crash, accessibility, recording, and replay coverage, with CRUD lifecycles for flows, suites, app uploads, TestRail cases, and visual-review baselines. Minor gaps exist at the margins — Jira/AzDO lack update/transition/comment operations, and iOS cannot open/close tabs — but the central workflows have no dead ends.
