Capture the current page as an image and save it to the OS temp infinitebacklog-mcp directory. Specify path for filename and full_page for the whole page.
Take a screenshot of the current page. Saved under the OS temp infinitebacklog-mcp directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | screenshot.png | |
| full_page | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one useful behavioral detail: the output is saved under the OS temp infinitebacklog-mcp directory. However, it says nothing about whether a page/browser must already be open, what happens on failure, or any overwrite behavior for the default filename.
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 short sentences, front-loading the action and then the output location. No filler or repetition.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but two undocumented parameters at 0% coverage with no annotation support leave real gaps. The full_page behavior in particular is never addressed, which an agent needs to invoke the tool deliberately.
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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what 'path' controls (e.g., that it overrides the temp-dir save location) or what 'full_page' changes, which is a meaningful viewport-vs-entire-page distinction.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Take a screenshot of the current page'), which is clear and distinct from text/html retrieval siblings like get_page_html. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the other page-inspection siblings (get_page_text, get_page_html, get_links), nor any stated prerequisite such as a browser being open. 'Current page' only weakly implies context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.