playwright-react-debug-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with browser actions, network/console inspection, and React state inspection well separated. However, similar tools like find_component and collect_component_instances, or get_dom and get_react_tree, could cause some misselection despite descriptive help.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, with action verbs like navigate, click, fill, and get_* for inspections, clear_* for resets, and find_*/collect_*/detect_* for specific operations. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count2/5
39 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped range and even exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad scope of a Playwright and React debugger justifies some depth, this many tools feels heavy and could overwhelm an agent.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full debugging lifecycle: navigation, interaction, DOM inspection, React component state and tree, multiple state management libraries (Zustand, Redux, React Query), performance monitoring, error detection, hydration mismatch, and accessibility audits. No obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.
Average 3.6/5 across 39 of 39 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
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
- Last stable release on January 15, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Hover over an element' with no mention of what happens on hover, whether it waits for visibility, error handling, side effects, or return value. This is a significant omission for a browser automation action.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for the tool's behavior. It is not appropriately sized given the need for usage and behavioral context. The single sentence is efficient but sacrifices substance.
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 a simple hover action and full schema coverage, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the timeout behavior, what happens when the selector is not found, or what the tool returns. The absence of output schema and behavioral context leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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% since both 'timeout' and 'selector' have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
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 'Hover over an element' clearly states the action ('hover') and the resource ('an element'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'click' or 'type'. However, it is extremely brief and does not specify the context or expected effect, but the core purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or contrast with similar actions. Without such context, the agent is left to 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral details such as error cases, index resolution, or whether this is a safe read operation. It only restates the tool's basic function.
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?
Single sentence, direct, and front-loaded with the action. No filler.
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?
The description is minimal and does not cover when to use it, what the output looks like, or how the index parameter works. Given the number of sibling React debugging tools, more context would be valuable.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does implicitly refer to the 'name' parameter by 'specific React component'. No added value.
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 the action (get) and target (state and props of a React component). It is specific enough to understand the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_context_values or collect_component_instances.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus similar React introspection tools. The description does not mention alternatives 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the two modes without explaining what happens if both offsets and selector are provided, scroll behavior (smooth/instant), side effects, or return values. This is a significant gap for an interactive tool.
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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly states the two main actions. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Given moderate complexity (3 optional params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is under-specified. It lacks critical context about how parameters interact, scroll alignment behavior, and any side effects, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent trying to decide how to invoke the tool correctly.
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 is already described in the schema. The description text adds minimal extra meaning by mapping 'page' to x/y offsets and 'element into view' to selector, but it does not clarify interactions between parameters (e.g., are offsets ignored if selector is present?). 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 clearly identifies the tool's verb ('Scroll') and resource (page or element), and distinguishes two modes: scrolling the page with offsets and scrolling an element into view. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the tool name, though there is no other scroll tool in the sibling list.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, mutual exclusivity of parameters, or conditions under which scrolling is appropriate. Users are left to infer usage from the purpose alone.
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?
There are no annotations, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond the core action. It does not disclose whether the tool triggers change/input events, waits for options to load, clears previous selections, supports multiple values, or throws errors on invalid values. This ambiguity makes agent behavior unpredictable.
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 redundant words. While under-specified in other dimensions, the sentence itself is structurally efficient and easy to parse.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for contextual completeness. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or usage edge cases (e.g., multi-select, dynamic options). An agent would lack critical information for reliable invocation.
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 fully covers all three parameters (selector, value, timeout) with concise descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself provides adequate parameter understanding.
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 the action ('Select option(s)') and the resource ('dropdown/select element'), making the primary purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like fill or click, but the target element type is specific enough to avoid major confusion.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fill or click. The description does not mention conditions like native select elements, multi-select requirements, or interactions with custom dropdown components, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that matching components are returned with props and state, but does not clarify whether it searches mounted instances or component definitions, nor mention side effects, ordering, or edge cases like empty results. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
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 highly concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a brief output summary. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the purpose and basic output, but lacks context about when to use it instead of sibling tools, and does not explain the structure of returned components beyond 'props and state.' Given the absence of an output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
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% coverage for the only parameter, including a clear description ('case-insensitive substring match'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, 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 the tool's function: 'Find React components by name' with a specific verb and resource. It also briefly mentions the output ('matching components with their props and state'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_react_tree or get_component_state, which also deal with React component information.
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 the many sibling tools, such as get_react_tree, get_component_state, or collect_component_instances. The description does not provide any context for tool selection.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and that headers are included. It doesn't explain what other details are returned, what happens on no match, or whether it requires a prior get_network call. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that could impact debugging workflows.
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 wasted words. It clearly states the main action and a key detail. This is an appropriately concise structure for a simple 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 tool is simple with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose but omits contextual details like typical usage flow (e.g., after get_network) and what 'detailed info' includes beyond headers. It's adequate but leaves the agent to infer important 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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond implying that 'id' or 'url' selects a specific request. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed info about a specific network request'), and mentions a concrete inclusion ('including headers'). It is clear and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_network by focusing on detail for a single request, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or contrast them.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used after get_network or how to obtain the ID/URL. The only hint comes from the schema ('Request ID from get_network output'), but that's not in the description.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation through 'list', but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, the scope (current tree vs entire app), or any side effects. It also omits the optional filtering behavior from the contextName parameter.
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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It contains no filler, redundant phrases, or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Despite a simple interface with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description only covers the basic listing action. It does not mention the contextName filter, return value structure, or how it relates to similar inspection tools, leaving notable gaps for the agent to navigate correctly.
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% for the single parameter (contextName), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to since the schema is sufficient.
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 ('list') and resource ('React Context providers') and explicitly names React Context, which distinguishes it from sibling state-store tools like get_zustand_stores and get_redux_state. It clearly states what the tool does: enumerates providers and their current values.
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 alternatives. Despite many sibling tools for different state management systems, it does not mention any selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the audit is read-only, what it returns (list of issues, pass/fail, etc.), or any potential side effects. The description only lists what it checks, not how it behaves.
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. It covers the key aspects of the tool efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 moderately complex with no output schema, and the description does not explain what the audit returns or how results are presented. It also lacks context on how the results might be used or any limitations. However, it does convey the purpose clearly, so it is minimally adequate.
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 with descriptions for both parameters (selector and includeWarnings), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, not even mentioning that the audit can be scoped via selector or adjusted for warnings.
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's function with a specific verb ('Run accessibility audit') and lists concrete audit areas (missing alt text, labels, heading structure, color contrast, ARIA issues), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_aria_tree or get_dom.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for accessibility auditing, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to related tools such as get_aria_tree.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool detects hydration mismatches but does not reveal whether it is read-only, how it performs the detection, what it returns, or how it behaves when no mismatches exist. This is a significant gap for a diagnostic tool.
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 extraneous information. It front-loads the primary action and adds a relevant usage context. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return value, the nature of the output (e.g., list of errors, boolean), or any prerequisites. For a debugging tool, this leaves key operational details undisclosed.
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 schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, that is unnecessary. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 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 'Detect SSR hydration mismatches' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools by its unique focus, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The addition of 'Essential for Next.js/Remix debugging' gives context but does not fully disambiguate from all related debugging tools.
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 phrase 'Essential for Next.js/Remix debugging' implies a use case but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the usage context somewhat vague.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output contents and use case, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention default traversal depth, or warn about performance on large DOMs.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a clear use case. Every word earns its place.
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 description covers the core purpose and output contents, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves ambiguity about the return structure and edge cases (e.g., what happens if selector is invalid). It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.
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 complete descriptions for both maxDepth and selector, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly identifies the tool's function: retrieving the accessibility tree with roles, names, and states. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_dom or get_react_tree, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Provides a specific use case ('screen reader debugging') but does not mention when to prefer this over alternative tree-getting tools, nor any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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?
Adds a useful version constraint (React 16+) and indicates output includes props and state. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. With no annotations, these details are largely missing.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and a brief compatibility note. No redundancy or irrelevant details.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a version note. However, it omits usage guidance and any indication of what the returned tree structure looks like, which is a meaningful gap given the presence of many closely related sibling 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?
The schema covers the only parameter ('depth') with a description and default value. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage.
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 the tool retrieves the React component tree including props and state, specifying the resource and verb. It differentiates from siblings like get_component_state by focusing on the full tree, but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or the tree's hierarchical scope.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many similar siblings (e.g., find_component, get_component_state). The description states what it does but not the context 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool likely waits for the element to be actionable, what happens on timeout, whether it scrolls into view, or any side effects. The description is bare and provides only the basic action.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple action, though it is slightly under-specified in conveying full behavior. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (all documented) and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient for a simple click action. However, it does not convey important behavioral context like wait behavior or error handling, which an agent would need to know for robust use. It is adequate but not 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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra semantic meaning beyond 'selector' — it does not explain button, timeout, or clickCount. Since the schema already handles parameter docs, this is adequate but not enhanced.
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's action ('Click') and the target ('an element matching the given selector'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and while it does not explicitly name siblings, the action of clicking is distinct from hovering, filling, or selecting.
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 usage: use this when you want to click an element. It provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like hover or select, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is straightforward but not explicitly differentiated.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'track' render counts, implying a read-only action, but gives no details about return format, whether it requires a running application, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 wasted words. It quickly communicates the tool's purpose. The minor typo ('re-re-renders') does not detract from its overall conciseness and clarity.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the render counts, but it does not. The simplicity of the tool (two optional parameters) is offset by the missing return-value information, leaving the agent uncertain about the expected output.
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?
Both parameters (threshold and componentName) have clear descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
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's function: tracking component render counts to identify unnecessary re-renders. It uses a specific verb ('track') and resource ('component render counts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_slow_components by focusing specifically on render count analysis.
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 usage when the goal is to identify unnecessary re-renders, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_slow_components or get_component_state, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'inspect' and 'finds', implying read-only, but does not state return format, filtering behavior, side effects, or whether it requires React DevTools to be enabled. This leaves significant 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is meaningful and there is no padding or irrelevant detail.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey what the tool returns and any important caveats. It does not explain whether it returns full state or just store names, what happens when no filter is provided, or the scope of 'stores used in React components.' This is a significant gap for a debugging tool with a single optional parameter.
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 schema description for the one parameter is comprehensive (case-insensitive substring match), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not add parameter details, but the schema already handles this dimension adequately, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 it inspects Zustand store state and finds stores used in React components. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('Zustand store state'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_redux_state by explicitly naming Zustand.
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 you need to inspect Zustand store state) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the many sibling debugging tools, explicit exclusions (e.g., 'for Redux use get_redux_state') would be helpful, but the core usage is clear enough.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output includes computed styles and bounding box, but does not specify return format, error behavior (e.g., if element not found), whether it waits for the element, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a simple read tool.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's core function and key output details. No unnecessary words or redundant information; it is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simple complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the primary intent but omits expected return structure and error handling. While not a complex tool, the lack of annotation and output schema means the description should provide more completeness, such as what 'detailed information' includes beyond styles and bounding box.
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 the only parameter 'selector' described as 'CSS selector for the element.' The tool description does not add additional semantics, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.
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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific element including computed styles and bounding box.' This specifies a concrete verb ('Get'), a resource ('a specific element'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dom or get_text_content by focusing on computed styles and bounding box details.
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 a use case—when detailed element info is needed—but does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_dom or get_text_content. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only implicit, not explicit.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic output (API calls, status codes, timing). It does not mention important aspects such as log retention, whether requests are captured from a certain point onward, or whether reading the log affects its state. This leaves the agent with an incomplete understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The second sentence adds a practical use case without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness.
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 a straightforward read-only log retriever with all-optional parameters, and the description covers the core function. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves the agent guessing about the exact response structure and any ordering/pagination defaults. It also fails to contextualize how this tool fits with siblings, making the overall guidance incomplete but adequate for basic 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 clear descriptions for all four parameters (last, filter, method, status), so the schema itself does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about the parameters or their interplay, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness but earns no additional credit.
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 opens with 'Get network request log,' which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_console (console logs) and get_request_detail (individual request details). The added clause 'See API calls, their status codes, and timing' further clarifies the exact scope, making 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Essential for debugging Lambda/API issues' implies a usage context, telling the agent this is the go-to tool for network-level debugging. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like get_request_detail for deeper inspection of a single request or clear_network for clearing the log, which are available among siblings.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the prerequisite that React Profiler or DevTools must be available, but it does not specify whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, how it handles missing profiler data, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that relies on external integration.
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, focused sentence that states the purpose and a critical requirement. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information (what the tool does) is presented first. This is exemplary conciseness.
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 with two numeric parameters and a clear purpose, and the schema covers the parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return format or handling of edge cases (e.g., when no components meet the threshold). Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but leaves room for additional context about expected results.
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% as both parameters (limit and threshold) have descriptions indicating their purpose and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Therefore, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('React components') with a clear criterion ('slow render times'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_render_count, which focuses on render counts rather than performance. The one-sentence description is precise and immediately understandable.
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 usage: whenever you need to identify React components with slow render times. It mentions a prerequisite ('Requires React Profiler or DevTools'), which gives some context for when the tool may not be usable, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is minimal and implied rather than explicit.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the 'visible' qualifier, but fails to explain the return format (e.g., string vs. array, behavior when no elements match, or multiple matches). This gap is significant given the absence of an output schema.
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 fluff, immediately front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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 description covers the essential input and purpose, but omits return format and edge-case behavior, which is especially important given no output schema exists. For a basic getter, this is minimally viable but 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%, and the description's reference to 'elements matching a selector' adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema property description. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter well.
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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('visible text content') and the target ('elements matching a selector'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dom or get_element, which focus on structure rather than text.
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 purpose implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_element, get_dom, or evaluate_js. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It calls the tool 'powerful' but does not disclose potential side effects like page state mutation, irreversible changes, or the ability to crash or navigate the page. The description offers only a high-level statement without detailing the significant risks of arbitrary JS execution.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Execute arbitrary JavaScript'), and every word contributes. 'Powerful' is a minor value judgment but not filler, so the description is appropriately sized and structured.
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?
This tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return behavior and safety implications. It does neither; an agent would not know what the evaluated JS returns or the potential destructive impact on the page. The description is too thin for such a powerful and risky tool.
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 the parameter description already explains that 'code' should use 'return' to return values. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.
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 executes arbitrary JavaScript in the page context, which is a specific verb+resource. The phrase 'custom inspection and debugging' distinguishes it from sibling tools like navigate, click, and get_dom, making its 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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool: for custom inspection and debugging. It implies it is a fallback for non-standard actions, but it does not explicitly exclude standard operations or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It simply states 'reload' but does not explain side effects like whether it performs a hard reload, whether it waits for the page to finish loading, or if it loses unsaved form data. This lack of behavioral detail makes it minimally transparent.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded, immediately conveying the core functionality. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter action with no annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could have added behavior context like 'waits for load' or 'does not clear the cache', but the simplicity of the tool allows the description to be sufficient as-is.
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 the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none exist, which 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 'Reload the current page' clearly identifies the action (reload) and the target (current page). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like navigate, go_back, and go_forward by focusing on refreshing the existing page rather than changing location.
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 provided on when to use reload versus alternatives such as navigate or wait_for. The context is implied but there is no explicit when/when-not or mention of alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool waits for certain conditions but does not disclose what happens on timeout (e.g., throws or resolves false), whether it polls or uses events, or how detachment/hidden states are interpreted. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's runtime behavior.
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 that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It covers both primary use cases (element states and URL navigation) efficiently, earning its place with zero waste.
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?
The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the core purpose and does not explain return values, timeout behavior, or edge cases like what happens when both selector and url are provided. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it reliably.
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 descriptions for all four parameters (url, state, timeout, selector), so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score 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 clearly states a specific action ('Wait') with a defined resource ('an element to appear/disappear or for navigation to a URL'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like navigate (which performs navigation) and get_element (which retrieves an element) by focusing on waiting for a condition rather than performing or reading directly.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to wait for an element to change visibility/attachment or for a URL to be reached. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'instead of using sleep' or 'not for polling DOM mutations.' The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose any side effects, such as irreversibility or whether all logs are cleared or only filtered ones. No additional behavioral context is given.
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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It 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?
Given the tool's simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, and a clear action—the description is fully complete. It covers everything an agent needs to know to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema needs no explanation. The description adds no parameter-related information, but the 0-parameter case means the baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb 'Clear' and clearly identifies the resource ('captured network logs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_network (retrieval) and clear_console (clearing console logs), making the tool's purpose 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_network or clear_console. The description simply states the action without any context or exclusions, leaving it to the agent to infer usage.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get console log entries' without mentioning return format, side effects, whether logs are cleared on read, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. It contains no redundancy or filler, with every word contributing to 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?
The tool is simple with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the basic purpose but does not describe what the returned data looks like or default behavior. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is an adequate but not fully complete picture.
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 descriptive parameter entries for last, level, and search. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it does not exceed the baseline expected when schema coverage is high.
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+resource construction ('Get console log entries from the page') that clearly states the tool's function. It also differentiates from sibling tools like clear_console by indicating this retrieves entries, and adds purpose ('seeing errors, warnings, and debug output').
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 phrase 'Useful for seeing errors, warnings, and debug output' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying debugging scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or contrast with alternatives such as get_network or clear_console, so it stops short of a full 5.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions compatibility but does not disclose read-only guarantees, failure modes if no Redux store is found, or any side effects from connecting to DevTools. The word 'Inspect' implies reading, but this is not explicit.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. No redundant details or fluff.
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 read tool, the description covers the core function and compatibility. However, it does not clarify default behavior when path is omitted, nor does it describe the return format, and with no output schema or annotations, some operational detail is 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as inspecting Redux store state and recent actions, with a specific verb and resource. The explicit mention of 'Redux' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_zustand_stores.
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 states it works with Redux DevTools or globally exposed stores, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the Redux-specific wording implies usage when dealing with Redux.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states that existing content is cleared, which is a key side effect. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as event firing, waiting for element visibility, or compatibility with different form field types, leaving some 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the critical clearing behavior. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.
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 tool is a simple form-filling operation with all parameters documented in the schema and no output schema to explain, the description covers the essential behavior (clearing and filling). It could be slightly more complete by noting whether it triggers input/change events or waits for visibility, but the current level suffices for a basic tool.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('selector', 'value', 'timeout'). The description adds minimal value by implying 'given value' refers to the value parameter and that clearing happens before filling, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions.
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 ('Fill') and resource ('a form field'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'type' (which implies keystroke-level input) and 'select' (which implies choosing from options). The additional behavior 'Clears existing content first' reinforces its purpose as a full replacement operation.
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 usage context: use this when you want to set a field's entire value, as evidenced by 'Clears existing content first'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'type' or 'select', nor mention when not to use it (e.g., for non-input elements).
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does not disclose potential side effects, whether it aggregates data from other tools, if it can be expensive, or what 'debugging state' fully entails. It only lists three data categories without explaining behavior beyond that.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately lists the content categories. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential return categories (page info, error count, failed requests). It is adequate, though it could mention whether the summary has limits or if it combines data from other sibling tools.
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 parameter semantics is minimal. The description adds value by clarifying what the returned summary contains, which is the only relevant semantic information for a parameterless tool.
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 action ('get a quick overview') and resource ('debugging state'), and enumerates its contents (page info, error count, failed requests). This distinguishes it from the more granular sibling tools like get_console, get_network, and get_dom.
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 phrase 'quick overview' implies use for initial triage, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over the more specific sibling tools or mention any alternatives. It lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the read-only nature and summarization behavior, but does not elaborate on truncation, performance implications, or what is excluded (e.g., attributes, event listeners). It provides basic transparency but lacks depth.
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 wasted words. It clearly states the tool's outcome and return contents, achieving maximum efficiency.
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 tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains what is returned (tag names, IDs, classes, text content) and the summarization nature, giving enough context for an agent to understand its purpose without needing an output schema detailed.
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 fully covers both parameters (depth and selector) with descriptions and defaults. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('summarized DOM tree'), and clearly lists return contents (tag names, IDs, classes, text content). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_element (single element) and get_react_tree (React-specific tree).
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 phrase 'summarized' implies use when a compact overview is needed rather than full element details, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative references are given. With many sibling tools, clearer guidance would help, but the context is implied.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool retrieves (performance metrics) without clarifying whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers measurement side effects, or the exact structure of the returned data. For a tool that interacts with browser performance, more context on side effects or measurement scope is needed.
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?
A single, direct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No filler, no redundant wording, and the most important information (metrics retrieved) is front-loaded. Excellent structure.
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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core function adequately. However, it omits details about the return structure or whether metrics are from the current page, which could be relevant for an agent. Overall, it is mostly complete for a simple getter.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4, and the description has no additional parameter details to provide since none 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('Core Web Vitals (LCP, FID, CLS) and other performance metrics'). It specifies concrete metrics (LCP, FID, CLS), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle network or DOM data. The phrase 'other performance metrics' introduces slight ambiguity but does not undermine overall purpose clarity.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use is implied by the tool's name and description, but there are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_slow_components or detect_memory_leaks. This is a clear but implicit usage indication.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention behavioral aspects such as whether it waits for page load, error behavior when no history exists, or potential side effects like losing unsaved form data.
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, concise sentence that directly states the function. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for its core purpose. However, it omits any mention of return values or failure behavior, which slightly reduces completeness.
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 the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no compensation is needed.
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 action: 'Go back to the previous page in browser history.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like go_forward and navigate by specifying history navigation.
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 (navigating backward in history) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like navigate or go_forward, nor any exclusions. Usage guidance is present but implicit.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the act of going forward, but does not disclose what happens if there is no forward history, whether it waits for page load, or any side effects, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral expectations.
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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.
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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema) and the clarity of the description, it is mostly complete. However, it omits any mention of the prerequisite of having forward history or potential errors, which would round out the behavioral picture for an agent.
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 the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter info, but with no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 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 action ('Go forward') and the target ('the next page in browser history'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'go_back' by the direction of navigation.
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 usage is implied by the verb 'go forward' and the resource 'browser history', indicating it is for forward navigation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like 'navigate' or 'reload', nor any mention of when not to use it.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the browser is launched if not running, which is a useful trait. However, it does not mention navigation completion behavior, error handling, or whether it returns any status, leaving some gaps.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no verbose filler. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 navigation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and the browser-launch side effect. It could mention return behavior or navigation completion details, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it doesn't explain URL format or waitUntil values. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 verb 'Navigate' and the resource 'URL in the browser', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like click or fill. It also notes that it launches the browser if not running, adding useful scope.
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 usage for navigation but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide context like prerequisites. It mentions browser launching, which is a behavioral context, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries some burden. It discloses the return format (base64 PNG) and scope (page or specific element), but does not explain behavior when both fullPage and selector are provided, nor defaults like viewport vs full page. The schema covers parameter details, but the description adds minimal extra context.
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 that efficiently states the action, target, and output format. There is no redundancy or irrelevant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and output. However, it lacks explicit usage timing and edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if fullPage and selector are both set), leaving minor contextual 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%, with both parameters fully documented. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Take' and identifies the resource 'screenshot of the page or a specific element', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools. It also specifies the output format as base64 PNG, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident from the name and description. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so usage guidance is only implied.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only 'captured' console logs are cleared (scope), which adds value. However, it does not mention irreversibility, side effects, or whether it returns a confirmation. For a simple clear operation, this is minimally adequate.
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 only four words, perfectly front-loaded and concise, with every word earning its place. No unnecessary information.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies the action and scope. It could explicitly mention that it only clears logs captured via get_console, but that is strongly implied by 'captured console logs' and sibling context.
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 the schema is empty (100% coverage by default). The description need not explain parameters; it adds meaning by specifying the resource ('console logs'), so the baseline of 4 applies.
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 'Clear captured console logs' uses a specific verb ('clear') and resource ('captured console logs'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_console (which retrieves) and clear_network (which clears network logs).
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 usage: clear logs when you want to reset captured console data before further inspection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns ('props, rendered HTML, and minified source for each instance') and implies a read-only nature through 'collect' and 'returns.' However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe/read-only or mention any performance caveats for large React apps, leaving some ambiguity about side effects and resource usage.
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 concise, using only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality and mapping, and the second succinctly lists use cases and return contents. There is no redundant or filler language.
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 tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values ('props, rendered HTML, and minified source') and use cases. It omits potential edge cases (e.g., component not found) and does not elaborate on the data structure, but the schema handles the parameter details. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic behavior.
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 full descriptions for both parameters (name and maxInstances), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.
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 action ('Collect all instances of a React component type') and specifies the unique value proposition ('props→HTML mapping'), setting it apart from sibling tools like find_component or get_react_tree. The use cases ('understanding component behavior, comparing different usages, or extracting component patterns') further clarify its distinct purpose.
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 provides explicit use cases: 'understanding component behavior, comparing different usages, or extracting component patterns.' However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of the full 5 for explicit exclusions and alternatives.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool inspects specific leak indicators, but it does not explain the underlying behavior (e.g., whether it traverses the DOM, what kind of report it returns, or whether it has side effects). 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key details without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.
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 parameterless tool, the description covers the core purpose and the types of issues it identifies. It does not explain return format or operational details, but given the lack of parameters and output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when to invoke it.
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 the baseline is 4. There is no need for parameter explanation, and the description does not mention any parameters. The schema coverage is 100% by virtue of having no properties.
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 ('detect') and resource ('memory leaks'), and lists concrete indicators (large DOM, detached nodes, growing collections). It clearly distinguishes from sibling debugging tools like get_dom or get_react_tree by focusing on leak detection.
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?
Usage context is implied: use when you suspect memory leaks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related diagnostics. The description provides no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. The word 'find' suggests a read-only operation, and mention of 'errors they have caught' gives some return context. However, it does not disclose whether errors include stack traces, whether the tool is expensive, or if it only works in development mode. The description is adequate but minimal.
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 of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Find'. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It perfectly balances brevity with informativeness.
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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the primary function and return focus. It could mention whether all error boundaries are returned or only those with caught errors, but for its simplicity, the description is nearly 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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and no additional clarification is required. The empty schema is fully covered by the absence of parameters.
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 ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('React error boundaries') plus additional relevant detail (errors they have caught). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_component or explain_error.
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 (whenever error boundary information is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. It does not name sibling tools or contrast its functionality, so usage context is only implicit.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the key characteristic (character-by-character input) but does not mention whether it focuses the element, clears existing text, or simulates real keystrokes. This is a moderate level of 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
This is a simple tool with a clear schema and no output schema. The description covers the primary use case and behavior; however, it omits minor details like how the element is targeted and interaction with existing content, which would make it 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('element') while explicitly noting the character-by-character behavior that differentiates it from tools like 'fill'. The mention of autocomplete further clarifies its intended use case.
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 implies when to use this tool ('useful for autocomplete'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'fill' or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidelines.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only diagnostic operation via 'analyze' and outlines what context is included. It does not mention side effects or limitations, but the read-only nature is evident from the verb and tool purpose.
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, front-loaded with the primary action ('Analyze a console error'), and delivers all essential information without unnecessary words.
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 description gives a solid overview of what the tool does and hints at the returned context (network requests, React state, suggestions), but it lacks explicit details about the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, the description could do more to explain what the agent receives.
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 descriptions cover both parameters (index and search) 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameters fully.
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 that the tool analyzes console errors with full context, including network requests, React state, and debugging suggestions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_console or get_network, which are narrower in scope.
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 explicitly positions this as the 'best tool for diagnosing issues', providing clear context for when to use it. It implies a comprehensive analysis compared to single-purpose siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verbs 'Inspect' and 'Shows' clearly imply a non-mutating read operation, and the content described (queries, status, cached data) sets expectations for the returned information. It does not mention potential side effects, but for a read-only inspection tool this is adequate.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action 'Inspect'. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, with no redundant or filler content.
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 inspection tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (what it inspects and what it shows). The filtering capability is documented in the schema, and the description is sufficient for the tool's complexity, though a bit more detail on return structure would be helpful.
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% description coverage for both parameters (status and queryKey). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expected for high schema coverage.
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 the specific verb 'Inspect' with the precise resource 'React Query/TanStack Query cache', and further clarifies it shows 'queries, their status, and cached data'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling state-inspection tools like get_redux_state or get_zustand_stores.
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 implicitly establishes usage context by naming the specific technology (React Query/TanStack Query), making it clear when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusion 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

Copy to your README.md:

[![playwright-react-debug-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Lars-Albinsson/playwright-react-debug-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Lars-Albinsson/playwright-react-debug-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![playwright-react-debug-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Lars-Albinsson/playwright-react-debug-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Lars-Albinsson/playwright-react-debug-mcp)

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/Lars-Albinsson/playwright-react-debug-mcp'

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