Enhanced Web Scraper MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool inspects and returns data, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it navigates to the URL, handles errors (e.g., if selector not found), requires page loading, or has performance implications. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and behavioral complexity. It lacks details on error handling, return format (e.g., structure of attributes/text/styles), dependencies (e.g., page state), and how it interacts with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by implying the 'selector' and 'url' parameters are used for inspection, but doesn't elaborate on 'properties' (CSS properties) or 'browser' beyond what the schema provides. It compensates minimally for the 25% gap in schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Inspect a DOM element by selector and return its attributes, text, and computed styles.' It specifies the verb ('inspect'), resource ('DOM element'), and output details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_page_info' or 'scrape_page', which might also involve element inspection.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a loaded page), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'wait_for_element' or 'inspect_react_app'. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly contextualized.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.