When the open page is blocked by a wall only a person can pass, return a handoff verdict so you can file request_handoff. This does not clear the wall itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | brokered account id (Ripple tenants: Tier 1 needs its switch ON) | |
| browser_id | Yes | from browse_open |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / accountAdded value: +{
+ "description": "brokered account id (Ripple tenants: Tier 1 needs its switch ON)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) carry the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: despite the name, it does not clear the wall and only produces a verdict for filing a handoff, which prevents an agent from assuming the challenge is resolved. It still says nothing about what the verdict contains or any side effects, but the key clarification is present.
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, no wasted words, with the triggering condition front-loaded and the key limitation ('does not clear the wall itself') placed as the memorable closer. Efficient and well ordered.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the result (a handoff verdict), and the follow-up action. It does not enumerate the verdict's contents, but with no output schema required that is a minor gap; an agent has enough to call 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (browser_id and account both documented in the schema), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter detail such as format or how account affects behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 gives a specific action (return a handoff verdict) and the triggering condition (page blocked by a wall only a person can pass), and explicitly states it does NOT clear the wall, which corrects the misleading 'solve_challenge' name. It routes to a named sibling (request_handoff), so it is distinguishable. It could be clearer about what a 'handoff verdict' actually is, but the verb+resource are concrete.
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 states the condition for use ('when the open page is blocked by a wall only a person can pass') and names the follow-up tool (request_handoff), so the agent knows the situation and the next step. It does not state when NOT to use it or how it differs from other browse_* tools in a borderline case, keeping it from a 5.
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.