Capture a PNG screenshot of the current browser page to verify or record its visual state. Save it to a specified path or temp file, and downscale large images with max_dim.
Capture a PNG screenshot. If path is omitted, a temp file is used.
Set max_dim to downscale results larger than that dimension.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| max_dim | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully adds that omitting path uses a temp file and that max_dim downscales results, which go beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what the `full` parameter does or what the return value looks like, leaving a meaningful behavioral gap for a tool with no 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds a meaningful detail: format, path behavior, and max_dim behavior. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
The description is minimally viable for a basic screenshot invocation, especially because all parameters are optional and the tool has no required inputs. However, the lack of an output schema and the absence of any explanation of the `full` parameter mean the description is not fully complete for edge cases like full-page captures or understanding the returned artifact.
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%, so the description must explain parameters itself. It covers path and max_dim clearly, but it never mentions the `full` parameter, which remains unexplained despite being part of the input schema. This is helpful but incomplete.
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 'Capture a PNG screenshot' states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling browser tools by naming the output format (PNG) and the action (screenshot), leaving no room for confusion with navigation or recording tools.
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 makes the core use case clear—when a screenshot is needed—but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over sibling tools like browser_page_info or browser_start_recording. The usage context is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or alternative routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.