Fetch a synthetic, read-only browser evidence JSON packet for contract inspection, retaining URL and title context with no auth or external side effects.
Use when a host needs the synthetic browser evidence fixture for contract inspection. Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects. Returns a JSON browser-evidence packet marked unredacted; URL and title context is retained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects, and that the returned packet is marked unredacted with URL and title retained. These are exactly the safety and provenance traits an agent needs, though it says nothing about determinism, size, or whether the fixture is stable across calls.
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, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by safety posture and return shape. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor drag is the slightly jargon-heavy first 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?
With no output schema, the description must describe the return value, and it does at a useful level (JSON browser-evidence packet, unredacted, URL and title context). Given zero parameters and a simple read tool, that is nearly complete, with only the exact packet structure left unspecified.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters with additionalProperties=false, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies nothing is configured at call time.
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 and effect (a synthetic browser-evidence fixture returned for contract inspection), which is far more than a restatement of the tool name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling fixtures (telos.proof, telos.proof.visual, telos.action.receipt), so an agent still has to infer where it sits in the family.
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?
"Use when a host needs the synthetic browser evidence fixture for contract inspection" gives an explicit trigger context, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or pointing at an alternative sibling, so it is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.