console_readRead captured browser console output and filter by level, keyword, timestamp, or page to troubleshoot errors and trace log sources.
读取已捕获的 console 输出，支持按级别、关键字、时间、来源页过滤。适用于排查报错、定位日志来源。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | 级别过滤：log/debug/info/warn/error/trace 等，可传数组 | |
| limit | No | 最多返回条数，默认 200 | |
| since | No | 仅返回该时间戳（epoch ms）之后的条目 | |
| format | No | 输出格式，默认 json | |
| search | No | 文本包含匹配 | |
| targetId | No | 限定某个标签页 | |
| errorsOnly | No | 只要 error 级别与异常 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that output is already captured rather than live, and lists filter capabilities, but says nothing about pagination, return shape, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by filter capabilities and use cases. No sentence is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema fully documents all optional parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, with no output schema, it leaves the return format and pagination behavior unexplained, which limits completeness for an agent invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a useful summary of filter categories but no syntax or default-value details beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: reading already-captured console output, with supported filter dimensions. It is clearly distinct from console_clear by implication, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as page_errors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear usage context: troubleshooting errors and locating log sources. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.