Capture a Firefox page snapshot and match controls by query and role to help LLMs inspect page elements for browsing actions.
Return a page snapshot and optionally match controls by query and role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| max_results | No | ||
| max_elements | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation by saying 'Return,' but does not disclose snapshot format, pagination/truncation behavior, whether matching filters the snapshot or just highlights controls, or any session requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise in form, though that conciseness comes at the cost of missing necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even with an output schema present, the description is not complete enough for a five-parameter browser tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and runtime behavior that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters. The description mentions query and role, but only vaguely as optional matching criteria; it does not explain accepted role values, query matching behavior, or what session_id, max_results, and max_elements do.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: returning a page snapshot and optionally matching controls by query and role. This is clear enough to distinguish from browser_screenshot and browser_get_text, though it does not explicitly name or compare against those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not explain whether this should be preferred over browser_screenshot, browser_find_text, or browser_get_text, or under what circumstances one would want a snapshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.