Playwright MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, with clear separation between browser actions (e.g., click, fill, navigate), HTTP methods (get, post, put), and code generation sessions. However, some overlap exists between playwright_click and playwright_iframe_click, where the iframe variant is a specialized case rather than a fundamentally different operation, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures. Code generation tools use consistent 'codegen_session' terminology, while Playwright actions consistently start with 'playwright_' followed by descriptive verbs (e.g., playwright_click, playwright_navigate). This predictability makes the set easy to navigate and understand.
Tool Count3/5
With 31 tools, the count feels heavy for a Playwright automation server, suggesting potential over-fragmentation. While Playwright is feature-rich, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., separate HTTP methods might be unified into a single playwright_request tool). The number is borderline excessive for typical agent workflows.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for Playwright automation, including navigation, interaction (click, fill, hover), HTTP requests, iframe handling, debugging (logs, screenshots), and code generation. It supports full CRUD-like operations for web testing without obvious gaps, enabling agents to handle complex browser automation tasks end-to-end.
Average 3/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get information about a code generation session') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It could be slightly more informative but earns high marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (retrieving session information), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, potential errors, or how it integrates with siblings like 'start_codegen_session'. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'sessionId' documented as 'ID of the session to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Get information about a code generation session'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'code generation session', but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'start_codegen_session' or 'end_codegen_session' beyond the action. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what information is retrieved.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a session ID from 'start_codegen_session'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'clear_codegen_session'. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it waits for the element, handles errors, requires page context, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with context if needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites like needing an active page, which are essential for safe and effective use in a browser automation 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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (selector and value). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'fill out an input field' clearly states the action (fill) and target (input field), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'playwright_iframe_fill' or 'playwright_select'. It specifies the verb and resource but lacks precision about what type of filling it performs.
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 versus alternatives like 'playwright_iframe_fill' for iframes or 'playwright_select' for dropdowns. The description implies usage for input fields but doesn't mention exclusions or context, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Navigate to a URL' implies a browser navigation action but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it launches a new browser instance, manages browser lifecycle, requires prior setup, handles errors, or what happens on timeout. For a 7-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple verb-noun phrase and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the Playwright ecosystem, how it integrates with sibling tools, what it returns (e.g., page object, success status), or behavioral nuances. For a navigation tool with rich parameters but minimal description, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters (e.g., browserType, headless, timeout). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or typical use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Navigate to a URL' states the basic action (navigate) and target (URL), but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify this is for browser automation using Playwright or how it differs from sibling tools like playwright_get (which likely serves a similar navigation purpose). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like playwright_get (which might also navigate) and playwright_click/playwright_fill (for post-navigation actions), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name, not described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (PATCH) but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the response might look like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the key action. It's appropriately sized for a basic HTTP method tool, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an HTTP mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (url and value). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Perform an HTTP PATCH request' clearly states the action (PATCH) and resource (HTTP request), but it's vague about what specifically is being patched or the context. It distinguishes from siblings like playwright_post or playwright_put by specifying the HTTP method, but lacks detail on the target or purpose beyond the basic verb.
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 versus alternatives like playwright_put or playwright_post, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The description implies usage for HTTP PATCH requests but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that clearing occurs 'without generating a test', which adds some context, but it fails to describe what 'clear' entails (e.g., does it delete data, reset state, require permissions, or have side effects?). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly without any wasted space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs a mutation (clearing a session) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'clear' means operationally, potential impacts, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete information to use the tool effectively.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'sessionId' parameter well-documented. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear') and resource ('a code generation session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'end_codegen_session', which might have similar functionality, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.
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?
The description provides minimal guidance by specifying 'without generating a test', but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'end_codegen_session' or other session management tools. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is given, limiting its helpfulness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that ending a session 'generate[s] the test file', which implies a write or output operation, but doesn't specify if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, or details the format or location of the generated file. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and outcome without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'generate the test file' entails—such as the file format, location, or any side effects—leaving the agent with insufficient context for a mutation tool that produces output.
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 has 100% description coverage, with 'sessionId' clearly documented as 'ID of the session to end'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('End a code generation session') and the outcome ('generate the test file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_codegen_session' or 'get_codegen_session', which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'clear_codegen_session' or 'start_codegen_session', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. This lack of explicit when/when-not instructions limits its helpfulness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: whether it waits for element visibility, handles errors if the selector doesn't exist, requires the page to be in a specific state, or has side effects like navigation. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of browser automation (mutating actions with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error handling, prerequisites, or output expectations, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable tool invocation.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'selector' parameter clearly documented as a CSS selector. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as selector format examples or interaction nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Click an element on the page' clearly states the action (click) and target (element on page), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'playwright_iframe_click' or 'playwright_click_and_switch_tab', but the core functionality is unambiguous.
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 versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page loaded), exclusions (e.g., not for hidden elements), or comparisons to siblings like 'playwright_iframe_click' for iframe contexts or 'playwright_press_key' for keyboard interactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it affects browser state (beyond the 'clear' parameter), or what format/log levels are returned. For a tool with potential side effects (via 'clear'), this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve console logs') and adds essential context ('from the browser with filtering options'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and potential behavioral implications. It doesn't explain what 'console logs' entail (e.g., browser devtools logs), return format, or error handling. For a retrieval tool with filtering complexity, more context is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'filtering options', which aligns with parameters like 'type' and 'search'. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('console logs from the browser'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'playwright_screenshot' or 'playwright_click' by focusing on log retrieval rather than visual or interaction tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential log-related siblings that might not exist in this set.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active browser session), nor does it suggest when to use filtering options versus retrieving all logs. With no usage context, the agent must infer based on tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on effects (e.g., does it apply to all subsequent requests, require browser restart, or have side effects on other tools). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like persistence, scope, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly in a Playwright context with many sibling tools.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'userAgent' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the parameter's purpose, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('custom User Agent for the browser'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_navigate' or 'playwright_get', which might also involve browser configuration, though the specific focus on User Agent is reasonably distinct.
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 versus alternatives or in what context it's appropriate. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be set before navigation or if it overrides default User Agents, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., data deletion, idempotency), authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented as 'URL to perform DELETE operation'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Perform an HTTP DELETE request') with a specific verb ('Perform') and resource type ('HTTP DELETE request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like playwright_patch, playwright_post, or playwright_put, which are also HTTP methods but for different operations.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios for DELETE requests (e.g., deleting resources), prerequisites, or how it differs from other HTTP methods in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage based on general HTTP knowledge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('drag') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires the page to be in a specific state, if it waits for elements to be visible, what happens on failure, or any performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a drag operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, error handling, or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain drag behavior details or selector requirements), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('drag') and the resource ('an element to a target location'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives or similar sibling tools like playwright_click or playwright_hover, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page loaded), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like playwright_click for simpler interactions, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this executes in the context of the current page, returns console output, handles errors, requires specific browser state, or has any side effects on the page.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a JavaScript execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (console output? evaluation result?), error handling, execution context limitations, or prerequisites like needing an active browser session.
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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('JavaScript code to execute'), so the description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Execute JavaScript') and the context ('in the browser console'), which distinguishes it from other browser automation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools that might also execute JavaScript in different contexts (like in page context vs console context).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include various browser interaction methods (click, fill, navigate, etc.), there's no indication whether this is for debugging, extracting data, or manipulating the page when other tools are insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this opens a new page, handles redirects, includes headers, or returns response data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (HTTP request with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., response body, status code) or behavioral aspects like error handling. With no structured data to compensate, the description should provide more 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'url' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format requirements or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Perform an HTTP GET request') with a specific verb ('Perform') and resource ('HTTP GET request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_navigate' or other HTTP methods (post, put, delete), which would require a 5.
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 versus alternatives like 'playwright_navigate' or other HTTP methods in the sibling list. The description is a bare statement without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on effects (e.g., triggers hover events, may reveal tooltips), error handling, or dependencies. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a UI interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, return values, or error cases, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'selector' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Hover an element on the page' clearly states the action (hover) and target (element on page), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like playwright_click or playwright_drag, which are also element interaction tools, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as playwright_click or playwright_drag, nor does it mention any prerequisites like requiring a page to be loaded. It's a basic statement without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Click') but lacks details on what happens after the click (e.g., page navigation, error handling, or side effects), permissions needed, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that performs an interactive action in a browser context.
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, direct sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of interacting with iframes in a browser automation context, the description is insufficient. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavioral traits, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description fails to address critical aspects like error conditions, what constitutes a successful click, or how it integrates with the broader Playwright toolset.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('iframeSelector' and 'selector'). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on selector syntax. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Click') and target ('an element in an iframe on the page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'playwright_click' by specifying the iframe context, though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from other iframe-related tools like 'playwright_iframe_fill'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an iframe present), when not to use it (e.g., for non-iframe elements), or compare it to similar tools like 'playwright_click' or 'playwright_iframe_fill', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., page interaction, error handling), permissions needed, or performance considerations, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with three parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the relationship between 'iframeSelector' and 'selector', but doesn't compensate for schema gaps since there are none, meeting the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('fill') and target ('an element in an iframe on the page'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'playwright_fill' by specifying the iframe context, though it could be more explicit about what type of element is filled (e.g., input field).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_fill' is provided. The description implies usage for iframe elements but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded) or exclusions (e.g., not for non-iframe elements).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Perform an HTTP POST request' implies a write operation, it doesn't describe what happens on failure, whether the request is idempotent, what authentication is required (though the token parameter hints at this), rate limits, or what the response format might be. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.
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 at just 4 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place by specifying the HTTP method and operation type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (POST) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral characteristics. For a tool that performs HTTP operations with potential side effects, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Perform an HTTP POST request' clearly states the verb (POST) and resource (HTTP request), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling POST-related tools like playwright_patch or playwright_put, which would require more specific differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple HTTP method siblings (playwright_delete, playwright_get, playwright_patch, playwright_put), there's no indication of when POST is appropriate versus PUT or PATCH, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., page navigation, form submission), error conditions, or interaction with the optional selector parameter. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that interacts with a browser context. It doesn't explain what happens after key press (e.g., page updates, errors), how it integrates with other Playwright tools, or common pitfalls. For a UI automation tool, this leaves too many contextual gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (key and selector). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of complex key combinations or selector best practices. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Press') and target ('a keyboard key'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like playwright_click or playwright_fill, which prevents a score of 5, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
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 versus alternatives like playwright_fill for text input or playwright_click for button interactions. The description lacks context about typical use cases (e.g., submitting forms, navigating menus) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states it performs an HTTP PUT request but doesn't describe what that entails operationally - no mention of idempotency, authentication requirements, error handling, response formats, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 maximally concise with a single, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't bury key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an HTTP PUT tool (a mutation operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like what PUT means semantically, what happens on success/failure, authentication requirements, or response format. The agent would need to make assumptions about this tool's behavior in important scenarios.
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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). Both 'url' and 'value' parameters are fully documented in the schema with clear descriptions. The description doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, formatting requirements, or examples, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Perform an HTTP PUT request') with the specific HTTP verb 'PUT', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like playwright_get, playwright_post, and playwright_delete by specifying the HTTP method. However, it doesn't mention what resource is being operated on beyond the generic 'HTTP request', which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain when PUT is appropriate compared to POST or PATCH, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. The agent must infer usage from the HTTP method alone without any explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Save') but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., file system writes), permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens if the page isn't loaded. For a tool that creates files, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is saved and to what format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters that performs file system operations. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling) and doesn't explain return values or side effects, which is inadequate for this complexity level.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying PDF generation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps (there are none).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save') and resource ('the current page as a PDF file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like playwright_screenshot (which captures images) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other PDF-related tools if they existed.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like playwright_screenshot or other file-saving methods. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page), exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but fails to describe key traits like file storage behavior (e.g., where screenshots are saved), default formats, or potential side effects (e.g., if it modifies page state). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 8 parameters and mutation implications.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to understand at a glance, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., file handling, defaults), usage context, and output format, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic intent.
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 has 100% description coverage, providing detailed documentation for all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the 'selector' parameter for element-specific screenshots. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles most of the parameter semantics effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Take a screenshot') and the target ('current page or a specific element'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential screenshot alternatives among siblings (like playwright_save_as_pdf), though no direct screenshot sibling exists in the provided list.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as playwright_save_as_pdf for PDFs or other screenshot methods. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page) or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention if this requires the page to be in a specific state, what happens on failure (e.g., if selector not found), whether it waits for elements, or any side effects like page navigation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It should cover more about how the tool behaves, error conditions, or what it returns, especially since it interacts with web elements and has potential side effects.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (selector and value) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'Select tag' context, which doesn't clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Select') and target resource ('element on the page with Select tag'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like playwright_click or playwright_fill by specifying it's for Select elements, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.
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 versus alternatives. While 'Select tag' implies it's for dropdown/select elements, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded), exclusions, or direct comparisons to other playwright tools for similar interactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the session 'record[s] Playwright actions', which implies ongoing recording, but doesn't specify what happens after starting (e.g., whether it persists across interactions, requires explicit ending, or has side effects like file creation). For a tool that initiates a stateful process, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Start a new code generation session') and adds specific context ('to record Playwright actions'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of initiating a stateful session with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a session ID or confirmation), how the session integrates with other tools, or potential errors. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'options' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as default behaviors or constraints. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Start' and the resource 'new code generation session', with the purpose 'to record Playwright actions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'end_codegen_session' by indicating initiation rather than termination, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_codegen_session' or 'clear_codegen_session'.
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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a session must be started before using other codegen tools), nor does it explain the relationship with sibling tools like 'end_codegen_session' or 'get_codegen_session'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't cover important aspects like whether this requires an active Playwright session, potential performance impacts, or what 'visible' means (e.g., excludes hidden elements). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with web pages.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of web automation tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'HTML content' includes (e.g., full DOM, rendered HTML), how it handles dynamic content, or what the return format is, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool, earning a high score as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('HTML content of the current page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_get_visible_text' or 'playwright_screenshot', which also retrieve page content but in different formats, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'playwright_get_visible_text' for text-only content or 'playwright_screenshot' for visual capture, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but omits critical details: whether it requires an active Playwright session, how it handles dynamic content or hidden elements, potential performance implications, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately comprehensible. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a browser automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'visible text content' entails (e.g., excludes hidden elements, includes formatted text), the return format, or error handling. For a tool in a rich sibling set like Playwright, more context is needed to ensure correct usage by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct. No additional parameter information is needed, so this meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('visible text content of the current page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_get_visible_html', but the focus on 'text content' vs 'html' provides implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by specifying what is being retrieved rather than just restating the tool name.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_get_visible_html' or other text-extraction methods. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requires an active page session) or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'initiates the wait operation but does not wait for its completion'. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is non-blocking, if it requires specific page state, timeout behavior, error handling, or how it interacts with other Playwright tools. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves asynchronous operations.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the behavioral nuance. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that initiates asynchronous HTTP response waiting. It lacks details on expected behavior, error cases, dependencies (e.g., requires an active Playwright session), and how results are used with 'playwright_assert_response'. The minimal description doesn't compensate for the missing structured data.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no context on URL pattern syntax or ID usage nuances). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Ask Playwright to start waiting for a HTTP response') and resource ('HTTP response'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'playwright_assert_response' which retrieves the response. However, it doesn't specify what 'start waiting' entails operationally, keeping it slightly vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning retrieval with 'playwright_assert_response', suggesting a two-step workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. direct response handling or alternatives, and doesn't specify prerequisites like needing an active Playwright session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether it waits for page loads, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, or what errors might occur. 'Navigate back' implies a state change but lacks detail about the operation's behavior beyond the basic intent.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does at a basic level but lacks context about how it integrates with the broader Playwright ecosystem, what happens after navigation, or what the user should expect. For a navigation tool with potential side effects, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps. The description focuses solely on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter discussion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Navigate back') and the resource ('browser history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'playwright_go_forward', but the verb 'back' vs 'forward' provides implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_navigate' or 'playwright_get'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session) or constraints (e.g., only works when there's history to go back to). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Navigate forward in browser history' implies a read-only navigation action, it doesn't specify what happens if there's no forward history (error? no-op?), whether it waits for page load, or what the visual/state outcome is. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple navigation tool with no parameters.
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?
For a zero-parameter navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about when it works, what happens on failure, and what the agent should expect after invocation. Given the simplicity of the tool, it's borderline acceptable but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters, though it could optionally mention that no parameters are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Navigate forward') and target ('in browser history'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'playwright_go_back', which performs the opposite navigation function.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like requiring a browser session with forward history available), nor does it contrast with other navigation tools like 'playwright_navigate' or 'playwright_get'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions waiting and validation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as timeout behavior, error handling, or what happens if validation fails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function in a concise manner.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or return values. It is minimally adequate for a tool with two parameters and high schema coverage, but could be more complete for validation operations.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or context for parameter usage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Wait for and validate a previously initiated HTTP response wait operation.' It specifies the verb (wait for and validate) and resource (HTTP response wait operation), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'playwright_expect_response' beyond mentioning it as the initiating tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by referencing 'previously initiated HTTP response wait operation' with 'playwright_expect_response,' suggesting it should be used after that tool. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or any exclusions, leaving some context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action (click and switch tab) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if no new tab opens), timing (e.g., waits for tab), permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential navigation impacts.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There is no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (interactive browser action with tab management), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but omits important contextual details like return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'selector' clearly documented in the schema as a CSS selector. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('click a link') and the subsequent effect ('switch to the newly opened tab'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'playwright_click' (which only clicks) and 'playwright_get' (which navigates without clicking). It uses precise verbs and identifies the resource (a link via selector).
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 description implies usage context (clicking links that open new tabs) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if it should be used over 'playwright_click' for links that open in the same tab or other navigation tools. However, the context is clear enough for basic differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions releasing resources, which is useful, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is irreversible, if it affects other sessions, error handling, or confirmation of closure. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its effects.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It covers the basic action but lacks context on when to use it, potential side effects, or integration with sibling tools, which would enhance usability in a complex environment like Playwright.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary details beyond the schema.
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 specific action ('close') and resource ('the browser') with the additional detail of releasing all resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'playwright_get' or 'playwright_screenshot' by focusing on termination rather than interaction or capture.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage at the end of a browser session but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., not specifying if it should be used after all other playwright operations). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BhanuTJ93/MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BhanuTJ93/MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BhanuTJ93/MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BhanuTJ93/MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/BhanuTJ93/MCP'

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