Capture a compact text DOM outline with [eN] refs for actionable elements to click or type. Use it as the primary way to see and interact with the page.
Text snapshot of the page: compact DOM outline with [eN] refs for actionable/labeled elements. Use the refs with click/type. This is the primary way to "see" the page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tabId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole burden. It discloses the return shape (compact text DOM outline with [eN] refs) and its role as the primary observation method, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about defaults when tabId is omitted, whether hidden elements are included, or any output size limits.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it is, how to consume it, and why it matters. The key output-format detail is front-loaded in the opening clause.
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 simple, annotation-free, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and how to use it. The only notable gap is the tabId default behavior.
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?
One optional parameter (tabId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. 'Of the page' weakly implies the current/active page default but does not explain what tabId does or which tab is snapshotted without it.
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 and resource ('Text snapshot of the page') and characterizes the output ('compact DOM outline with [eN] refs for actionable/labeled elements'), which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_html (raw markup) and screenshot (image). An agent can tell what this produces without opening a schema.
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?
Gives clear positive guidance: use the [eN] refs with click/type, and frames it as 'the primary way to "see" the page.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., use get_html for full markup or screenshot for visual layout), so it stops short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.