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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses buffered behavior from load, that page errors are included, and that late calls still get data. It does not describe output format or side effects, but for a read-only log retrieval this is adequate and there are no contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides routing and buffering context. No fluff, clearly front-loaded with the primary function.
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?
The description is complete for a two-parameter read tool: it clarifies the browser context (desktop grid), scope (by pageId), content (console output and errors), and buffering behavior. No output schema exists, but the return type is self-evident from 'console output'. Minor gap: it doesn't specify whether logs are cumulative across calls, but this is not critical for invoking the tool.
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 already fully describes both parameters: pageId as 'Page ID from web_navigate' and filter as 'Case-insensitive substring filter'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: it returns console output captured from the desktop grid browser page by pageId, including page errors. It also differentiates itself from mobile log tools by explicitly saying 'NOT a device' and naming the alternatives, so an agent can select it correctly.
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?
It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use for desktop grid browser pages, and for real phone/tablet use android_devtools_console_logs or ios_safari_console_logs (by udid). The buffering note ('nothing is lost by asking late') also tells the agent it can call at any point after page load.
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.
