Playwright MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.0.77
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool maps to a distinct browser action or state source, and the descriptions generally make boundaries clear. The only mild friction is between browser_type, browser_fill_form, and browser_evaluate, but their usage contexts differ enough to avoid serious misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share a consistent browser_ prefix and snake_case style, which gives the set a predictable feel. A few noun-style tools like browser_tabs, browser_console_messages, and browser_network_requests break the otherwise dominant action-focused pattern, but the deviation is minor.
Tool Count3/5
At 23 tools, the surface feels heavy and sits in the 16-25 range that reads as over-scoped. The browser-automation domain is broad enough that most tools justify their existence, but some consolidation might improve the set's overall tightness.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the major browser workflow: navigation, interaction, form filling, waiting, screenshots, snapshots, console/network inspection, dialogs, tabs, and file upload. Minor gaps like reload, forward navigation, and cookie/storage management remain, but agents can work around them with navigate or browser_evaluate.
Average 3.3/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral transparency beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not explain what handling a dialog actually does, what side effects occur, or how promptText is used. It discloses no additional behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but it earns no place because it repeats the tool name and title. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and minimal guidance, 'Handle a dialog' is not complete enough. The agent is left to infer when dialogs occur, what accepting versus dismissing means, and how promptText relates to prompt dialogs. The schema helps with parameter syntax but not operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so accept and promptText are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable under the baseline for full schema coverage, but it also does not clarify operational nuances such as accept=false meaning dismiss.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Handle a dialog' simply restates the tool name and title, making it a tautology. It names the resource but uses the vague verb 'handle' without specifying whether the dialog is accepted, dismissed, or otherwise acted upon.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, such as when a browser JavaScript dialog appears or that the dialog must be handled before continuing browser interaction. It also does not mention any alternatives or conditions for using accept versus promptText.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already state; it doesn't note that clicking can trigger navigation, dialogs, or state changes. The destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations are present, but the description itself contributes nothing new about side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence and is easy to scan, but it is under-specified: 'on a web page' is largely redundant for a browser tool and the sentence doesn't convey why or how the click is performed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no usage guidance, and no behavioral notes, the description is too thin for an agent to fully understand invocation context. The parameter schema fills in target details, but important interaction semantics and when to choose this tool are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents target, button, modifiers, and doubleClick. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says the tool performs a click on a web page, so the core action is clear, but it never mentions targets, snapshots, or click variants, making it generic. It also doesn't meaningfully distinguish this from the many sibling browser interaction tools beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use browser_click versus browser_hover, browser_press_key, browser_drag, or browser_select_option. No context, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is minimal and potentially misleading: 'all console messages' suggests no filtering, but the schema shows the tool filters by level (default info) and recency (since last navigation unless all=true). It discloses no default behavior or file-saving option, and adds no context beyond what the annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient, but it only restates what the tool name implies and does not pack in distinguishing or behavioral context that would earn the highest score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has readOnlyHint=true, and a complete input schema that explains each parameter. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify the return format beyond the filename parameter note, and the lack of usage guidance leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with defaults and behaviors. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning, and its use of 'all' could be confused with the `all` boolean parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('console messages'), making the tool's core function clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser_network_requests or browser_snapshot, and the word 'all' is ambiguous about whether it means all levels or all messages since session start.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, mention prerequisites, or state exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the act of uploading. The schema notes that omitting paths cancels the file chooser, but the description itself does not explain side effects, what gets overwritten, or how the upload interacts with the current page.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately brief for such a simple tool, though the brevity sacrifices useful usage and behavior guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema and annotations cover the core parameter and safety profile, making this minimally viable for a one-parameter tool. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use upload vs browser_drop, how the target file input is determined, and what observable effects occur, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the paths parameter is documented as absolute paths, single or multiple, and omitting it cancels the file chooser. The description does not add any semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Upload one or multiple files,' giving a clear action and object with multi-file scope. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like browser_drop, though it does not specify that this operates through the browser file chooser or how the target element is selected.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as browser_drop or browser_fill_form. The description does not mention prerequisites, target element requirements, or alternatives, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. It does not mention clearing existing field values, requiring a page snapshot's target references, or what the tool returns after filling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four words and contains no filler or unnecessary repetition. The action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the schema is thorough, the overall definition is weak on when to use this tool among many browser interaction siblings and on behavioral expectations there is no output schema and no guidance on side effects. An agent could likely call it with a valid schema, but the description alone does not provide enough surrounding context for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for target, name, type, value, and element. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('fill') and resource ('multiple form fields'), clearly identifying the action. It is more informative than the title and helps distinguish it from single-interaction siblings like browser_type or browser_click, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use browser_fill_form versus related tools such as browser_type, browser_select_option, or browser_drop. It does not state that this tool is intended for batch form filling or mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving tool selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether the resize affects subsequent navigation, whether it changes the viewport or the browser chrome, or whether it is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with no obvious filler. However, it essentially restates the tool name and title, providing no additional structural benefit or useful elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter operation, the description plus schema is minimally adequate for invoking the tool. But it omits behavioral clarifications and usage context that would make it truly complete, especially given the destructive hint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for width and height. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses a specific verb ('resize') and a clear object ('browser window'), and the operation is distinct from the sibling browser_* tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself or clarify whether it resizes the viewport or the entire OS window.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The unique name implies a use case, but the description itself leaves usage decisions entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention multi-select behavior, the permission flow behind the 'element' parameter, or any side effects on page state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves no room for useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers the parameters, and annotations cover the destructive nature, so the essential calling contract is present. However, the description omits multi-select support and any guidance for choosing this tool over browser_fill_form, leaving the context minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds little beyond the action itself, and it does not clarify the relationship between 'values' and multi-select, so it earns the baseline rather than more.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('select') and resource ('an option in a dropdown'), so an agent can tell it is about dropdown selection. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like browser_fill_form or browser_type, which could also affect form controls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to reach for this tool instead of alternatives. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer conditions such as 'use when the target is a native <select> element'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as effects on the page, timing, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is efficient, though so minimal that it misses opportunities to convey usage or behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive, open-world tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not mention when to type vs fill a form, whether to use selectors or snapshot refs, or any cautions about side effects, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear meaning in the schema. The description itself does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('editable element'), making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like browser_fill_form or browser_press_key, so it does not fully disambiguate the tool's unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_fill_form or browser_press_key. The description implies a general typing action but does not state when it should be preferred or when a sibling would be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is partially disclosed. The description adds the behavioral nuance that evaluation can target a page or an element, but it does not explain side effects, execution context, or what happens to the page state. With annotations covering the main safety signals, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is minimally sufficient as a title-like summary, though it could be slightly expanded to improve other dimensions without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that executes arbitrary JavaScript and is marked as destructive, this description is thin. It does not explain return behavior, the role of the filename parameter, or how this differs from browser_run_code_unsafe. The schema fills in parameter details, but the overall operational context remains incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds no additional meaning beyond recognizing page or element targeting, which matches the existing schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('JavaScript expression on page or element'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling browser_run_code_unsafe, which also executes JavaScript, but it does convey that evaluation can be scoped to a page or a particular element.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_run_code_unsafe, nor any mention of when it is appropriate to evaluate on the page versus on an element. The description implies JavaScript execution but provides no context, exclusions, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is visible. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context, such as the current page being replaced, whether navigation waits for page load, or what happens on failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema and annotations cover the URL parameter and the destructive/open-world nature of the action, so the description is minimally adequate. It is incomplete regarding post-conditions, such as waiting for page load or how it relates to browser_navigate_back.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single required 'url' parameter. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, but none is strictly needed for such a simple parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action and target: 'Navigate to a URL.' It is understandable and distinct from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from browser_navigate_back or specify that navigation happens in the current tab.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_navigate_back, browser_type, or browser_evaluate. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is provided outside the description. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as the fact that hovering may trigger UI state changes without clicking, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It is compact but not structured enough to convey usage context; still, for a simple action primitive, the brevity is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-action tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no guidance on when hover is the right sibling tool, the description is slightly incomplete for an agent deciding among many browser interaction tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with target and element both already described in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema to convey semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('hover') and a resource ('element on page'), which distinguishes it from siblings like click, type, and drag. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools, but the action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use hover versus alternatives such as click, drop, or press_key. There is no mention of use cases like revealing tooltips or hover menus, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag the operation as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and open-world (openWorldHint=true), and the description does not contradict those signals. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as potential shortcuts, focus requirements, or navigation side effects, so it earns only a baseline score thanks to the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary elaboration. It is slightly redundant with the tool title, but it is compact and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and annotations indicating destructive/open-world behavior, the description is mostly sufficient for correct invocation. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling input tools, which is already penalized under usage guidelines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the single required parameter, key, is documented with examples like `ArrowLeft` and `a`. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('press') on a specific target ('a key'), so an agent can tell this is a keyboard-input tool. It does not explicitly distinguish pressing a key from typing with browser_type, but the key/character parameter and tool name make the core purpose reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 browser_type, browser_click, or browser_fill_form. No use cases, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from its name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already communicate that this is not read-only and may be destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the bare action, such as what the drag causes, whether elements move, whether drop events fire, or whether user permission is required for the source and target elements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the object, every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable by an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action tool, the schema and annotations cover the required parameters and safety profile, and there is no output schema to document. However, the description leaves some ambiguity around when to use this tool versus the sibling browser_drop, and it does not mention the optional permission-related element descriptions that appear in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description's phrase 'between two elements' loosely maps to startTarget and endTarget, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('drag and drop') and the resources involved ('between two elements'), so an agent can understand the tool's core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool browser_drop, but the compound phrase 'drag and drop' and tool name convey the full gesture.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: an agent should use this tool when a drag-and-drop interaction between two elements is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as browser_drop, browser_click, or browser_hover.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds little beyond restating the action verbs. It does not explain side effects such as which tab is closed when index is omitted, whether select changes focus, or what happens when creating a tab without a URL. Those details live in the schema, not in the description, so the description itself does not enrich behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that lists the four supported operations concisely. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The combination of the description, action enum, and parameter descriptions is adequate for basic calls. However, with no output schema, the tool does not disclose what 'list' returns, and there is no guidance about behavior when required parameters are omitted. This leaves some gaps for an agent deciding how to interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear explanation. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource ('browser tab') and enumerates the exact operations ('List, create, close, or select'), which aligns with the action enum and distinguishes this tool from browser-level siblings like browser_navigate or browser_close. This leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool rather than an alternative. For example, it does not mention browser_close as the sibling for closing the browser itself, or browser_navigate for navigation. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the action enum.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds the core condition semantics. However, it does not disclose what happens if the target text never appears, whether the wait can time out, or whether text, textGone, and time are mutually exclusive or combinable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. It communicates the essential behavior immediately and is easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema covers its parameters, but the description leaves important edge cases unaddressed: all parameters are optional, and the description does not clarify what happens when no arguments are provided or when multiple arguments are given. There is also no output schema, so the return behavior is unknown, though this is less critical for a wait operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are already described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps text to appearing, textGone to disappearing, and time to elapsed seconds, but it does not add details about parameter combinations, precedence, or valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete action—waiting—and defines three target conditions: text appearing, text disappearing, or a specified time passing. This is enough to tell the tool apart from the sibling browser tools, none of which are wait operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of typical scenarios such as waiting after navigation or before taking a snapshot. The intended usage is left entirely to inference from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the specific affected resource ('the page'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the browser session also ends, whether unsaved state is lost, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter destructive action, the description plus annotations cover the core meaning. The main gap is scope ambiguity: whether 'the page' means the current tab or the entire browser, and what happens after the close. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly implies that no arguments are needed, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('the page'), making the action clear and distinct from the sibling navigation or manipulation tools. However, it is slightly ambiguous whether it closes only the current tab or the entire browser, especially since the annotation title says 'Close browser' rather than 'Close page'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_navigate_back or browser_tabs. It does not state that this is the final cleanup action or mention prerequisites, so an agent must infer when closing the page is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral framing of an 'accessibility snapshot' and a quality comparison to screenshots, but it does not disclose what the output actually contains, how large it can be, or that it returns element references (which is only revealed in the parameter schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. The comparative phrase 'this is better than screenshot' is concise but slightly vague, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for clarifying what the tool returns. It only says 'snapshot' without stating it is a textual or markdown accessibility tree; the schema hints at this via the filename and target parameters, but the description alone under-specifies the return format and practical scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, all four parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Capture') and the resource ('accessibility snapshot of the current page'), making the tool's basic function evident. It also gestures at differentiation by claiming it is 'better than screenshot', which separates it from browser_take_screenshot, though it does not define what an accessibility snapshot is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is the implied preference for this tool over screenshots ('this is better than screenshot'), which hints at using it when accessibility/structure is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other siblings like browser_evaluate, nor does it give any exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond restating the title. It does not mention edge cases such as having no previous page, losing form state, or waiting for page load.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool the description is close to sufficient, but because there is no output schema it does not indicate what the tool returns or whether it waits for navigation to complete. Edge behavior like a missing history entry is also unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameter-less tool where no semantic gaps exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Go back') and precise target ('previous page in the history'), which clearly differentiates it from browser_navigate and other browser actions. The verb and resource are explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_navigate or browser_tabs. The description simply states what it does and leaves the usage decision entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not responsible for repeating that. It adds useful context about simulating an external drag, but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as triggered page handlers or side effects. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the essential constraint about paths/data is placed directly after. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 100% schema coverage and the annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation. It covers the critical constraint and the simulation semantics, though it does not elaborate on edge cases like providing both paths and data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema by stating 'At least one of paths or data must be provided', which is a cross-parameter constraint not expressed in the JSON schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Drop files or MIME-typed data onto an element') and adds the key distinction 'as if dragged from outside the page', which separates it from siblings like browser_drag. It clearly identifies the resource and the mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when an external drag-and-drop simulation is needed. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as browser_file_upload or browser_drag, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructive and read-write behavior, but the description adds the critical, non-obvious detail that execution happens in the Playwright server process and is RCE-equivalent. This is essential risk context beyond what the annotations convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The safety warning is front-loaded immediately after the action, and every phrase adds meaningful signal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema plus the unsafe warning cover most invocation details: how code is called, how filename works, and what risk is involved. The main gaps are not explicitly stating that code or filename is practically required and not describing the return behavior, but the schema example makes the return pattern inferable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including the code invocation signature, the page argument, and filename precedence. The description itself adds no significant parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the schema-driven baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The lead sentence identifies a specific action and resource: 'Run a Playwright code snippet.' The unsafe clause further clarifies the execution context as arbitrary JavaScript in the Playwright server process, which is RCE-equivalent. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly code-oriented sibling browser_evaluate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for arbitrary Playwright code that specialized browser tools may not cover, especially with the strong 'Unsafe' and 'RCE-equivalent' warning. However, it never explicitly names a safer alternative or states when-not-to-use, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating it returns headers and body, and that it can return a single part when `part` is set. However, it does not disclose behavior around invalid indices, file output, or other edge cases, which keeps this at a moderate score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two compact sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides the essential contextual link to the sibling listing tool. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity retrieval tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, how to select a specific request, and how to narrow to a single part. The rich parameter schema covers remaining invocation details, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit description of the return content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a small amount of contextual meaning by linking `index` to browser_network_requests output, but this mostly repeats what the schema already says. A baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns full details of a single network request, and explicitly contrasts this with the list-oriented sibling browser_network_requests. The verb 'Returns' plus the resource ('single network request') and the optional 'part' selector make the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The instruction 'Use the number from browser_network_requests' gives clear workflow context: first list requests, then use this tool with the returned index. It does not explicitly state 'do not use this for listing all requests,' but the differentiation from the sibling is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the list is 'since loading the page' and that it is a numbered summary, which helps the agent understand what it will receive before calling the sibling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a clear next-step pointer to the sibling tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return format (numbered list), the time scope (since loading the page), and how to obtain full details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (filter, static, filename) are already fully documented. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the complete schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Returns'), a clear resource ('network requests'), and a scope qualifier ('since loading the page'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_network_request by explaining that the sibling provides full details using the item number.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear contextual guidance: this tool returns a numbered list, and browser_network_request should be used next with the number for full details. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the workflow is obvious and complementary to the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral constraint: the screenshot is observational only and cannot serve as a basis for interaction. It does not describe what the tool returns, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second gives a critical usage caveat. There is no filler, and the most important distinction from browser_snapshot is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 100% schema coverage, annotations covering the read-only/non-destructive nature, and a clear sibling alternative, the description is largely complete for correct selection and invocation. The only minor gap is that, with no output schema, it does not state whether the result is image data, a saved file path, or something else.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and parameters such as type, scale, filename, and fullPage are already well documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no meaningful parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for fully covered schemas without adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Take a screenshot of the current page.' It also differentiates itself from the sibling browser_snapshot by noting that screenshots cannot be used to drive actions, so an agent can select the correct tool without inspecting schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use the tool (need a screenshot of the current page) and provides a clear exclusion: you cannot perform actions based on the screenshot. It names browser_snapshot as the alternative for action-oriented use, giving the agent direct routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

playwright-mcp-render-mto6ljjz MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![playwright-mcp-render-mto6ljjz MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kurtzi9/playwright-mcp-render-mto6ljjz/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kurtzi9/playwright-mcp-render-mto6ljjz)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![playwright-mcp-render-mto6ljjz MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kurtzi9/playwright-mcp-render-mto6ljjz/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kurtzi9/playwright-mcp-render-mto6ljjz)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Kurtzi9/playwright-mcp-render-mto6ljjz'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server