Retrieve recorded browser console logs for a tab. Filter entries by log type, text search, or limit to inspect errors, warnings, and debug messages.
Get recorded console logs for a tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by log type: log, debug, info, error, warning, etc. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of entries to return | |
| search | No | Filter by text content | |
| targetId | Yes | Target ID of the tab |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that logs exist only after recording is started, whether logs persist across navigations or clears, what the response shape is, or that no output schema is provided. The single sentence reveals almost nothing beyond the tool's basic intent.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, object, and scope in that order. There is no wasted wording, though the brevity does leave behavioral gaps that are penalized in other dimensions.
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 and no annotations, the description must carry more weight, but it omits the critical prerequisite relationship to console_start, does not explain what 'recorded' means (session-bound, cleared, etc.), and gives no hint about return values. The sibling set strongly implies a recording workflow, yet the description never connects to it.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters including type, limit, search, and targetId. The description adds 'for a tab' which maps to targetId, but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('recorded console logs') and scope ('for a tab'). The word 'recorded' subtly distinguishes this retrieval tool from the sibling recording lifecycle tools (console_start, console_stop, console_clear), though it does not name them.
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?
No guidance is given on when to call this tool or what prerequisites exist. The description says the logs are 'recorded' but never states that console_start must have been invoked first, nor distinguishes when to use this versus console_clear or console_stop. An agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.