Read recent browser console output (log, warn, error) to debug Three.js scenes, filter by level, and optionally clear the buffer or cap message count.
[INSPECT] Read-only. Recent browser console output (log/warn/error).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | Clear the buffer | |
| level | No | ||
| limit | No | Max messages (default: 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / clear / descriptionPrevious value: -"Clear the capture buffer"New value: +"Clear the buffer"Input schema / properties / level / descriptionRemoved value: -"Filter by level"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max messages to return (default: 50)"New value: +"Max messages (default: 50)"v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is recent and level-scoped, but says nothing about buffer bounds, ordering, or the fact that the schema exposes a 'clear' flag that mutates the buffer despite the read-only framing — a notable omission for a tool with a state-changing parameter.
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 fragments, zero filler, with the category tag and read-only marker front-loaded. It is tight, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful behavioral detail rather than being a model of efficient completeness.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so minimally (recent console messages at log/warn/error). It leaves the buffer-clearing behavior, default limit, and ordering unspecified, which is thin for a tool whose schema contains a mutating flag.
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 coverage is 67%: 'clear' and 'limit' are documented in the schema, while 'level' is an enum whose values are self-explanatory. The description adds no format, default, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific resource (recent browser console output) and constrains it to log/warn/error levels, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. The '[INSPECT]' tag groups it with sibling inspection tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with web_audit or run_js, which are the nearest functional neighbors.
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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as web_audit, performance_snapshot, or run_js. The read-only tag implies a safe inspection context, but that is inferred, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.