Browser MCP Server

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 discloses that the tool clears logs and stops listening, which are behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or what happens if no logs are captured. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action ('clear all captured console logs and stop listening') and includes a reference for further documentation ('see browser_docs'). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words, 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.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and effect. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or side effects, and the reference to 'browser_docs' suggests incomplete self-containment. For a simple tool with no structured data, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in full context.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description focuses on the tool's action without unnecessary parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with the verb 'clear' and the resource 'captured console logs', and mentions 'stop listening' as an additional effect. It distinguishes from sibling 'browser_console_get' (which retrieves logs) and 'browser_console_start' (which starts listening), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings. The reference to 'browser_docs' provides context but doesn't fully differentiate within the tool description itself.

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 implies usage after capturing logs via 'browser_console_start' or similar, as it mentions 'captured console logs' and 'stop listening'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to clear vs. get logs) or provide exclusions. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests additional guidance exists elsewhere, but within the description, 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.