Extracts visible text from a page or selected element and returns it as untrusted content, with offset-based paging for long text.
Visible text of an element (default whole page), wrapped as untrusted page content. Long text is paged: pass offset=N from the 'call again with offset' note to continue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | ||
| selector | No | body | |
| max_chars | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the content is returned as untrusted page content, and long output is paged with an offset token surfaced in the response. Truncation/resume mechanics are the real value-add here.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the paging rule. No filler, no restating of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't explain return shapes. It covers scope, untrusted-content handling, and pagination resume, though it omits explicit sibling disambiguation among the many read/extract tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the 'default whole page' behavior (selector) and explains the offset continuation workflow, but says nothing about max_chars or what selector syntax is accepted, leaving the agent to infer from defaults.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (get visible text of an element, defaulting to the whole page) and clarifies the output framing ('wrapped as untrusted page content'). It doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings like get_markdown, get_html, or snapshot, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which extraction tool to pick.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the paging instruction ('pass offset=N from the call again with offset note to continue') gives a concrete follow-up workflow. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternative text-extraction siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.