browser_discoverScan local DevTools HTTP ports (default 9222–9235) to detect running Chrome or Edge instances with remote debugging enabled, so you can connect an assistant to them.
扫描本机的 DevTools HTTP 端点（默认 9222–9235），找出已经开启远程调试的浏览器。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | 结束端口，默认 9235 | |
| from | No | 起始端口，默认 9222 | |
| host | No | 目标主机，默认 127.0.0.1 | |
| ports | No | 额外要探测的端口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden but only states what is scanned and default ports. It omits whether the scan is non-destructive, blocking, timeout behavior, permissions required, or what is returned when no endpoints are found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and default port range with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a discovery tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a network scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of endpoints), timeout behavior, or how results are structured, leaving an agent unable to interpret the output correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the default port range but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (扫描) and resource (本机的 DevTools HTTP 端点) and includes the default port range, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like browser_connect or browser_list_processes, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used before connecting to a browser.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.