Inspect page elements by CSS selector or screen point to capture HTML, computed styles, bounds, and crops, then record targeted design feedback notes.
Inspect page elements by selector or point (HTML, 16 computed styles, bounds, crop) and write a Design Feedback note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| point | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| selector | No | ||
| inline_image | No | ||
| allow_network | No |
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 burden. It discloses returned artifacts (HTML, 16 computed styles, bounds, crop) and that it writes a Design Feedback note, but omits permission/auth requirements, whether the note write is persistent or destructive, and the behavior of allow_network and inline_image.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence; the parenthetical lists outputs efficiently with no filler. Density compresses several behaviors into one line, but the sentence remains readable.
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 an 8-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the notes structure or network/image options, leaving important call-shaping details missing.
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% for 8 parameters. The description names selector, point, and implies notes/crop, but leaves target, notes[].intent, allow_network, inline_image, and width/height unexplained, so it only minimally compensates.
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 ('Inspect') and resource ('page elements'), and names the two targeting modes (selector or point) plus what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like design_render or design_lint, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.
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?
The phrase 'by selector or point' hints at invocation modes but gives no when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools such as design_lint or design_search. There are no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.