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 logs are captured since a specific starting point, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this operation is read-only, what format the logs are returned in, or if there are any limitations (e.g., memory constraints or pagination). The description adds some value but leaves gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loads the core functionality. The parenthetical reference to browser_docs is brief and relevant. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, 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's moderate complexity (retrieving captured logs with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and its prerequisite (browser_console_start), but doesn't cover return format, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'filter' parameter fully documented (including enum values and optionality). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Get all captured console logs since browser_console_start was called.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('captured console logs'), and temporal scope ('since browser_console_start was called'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_console_clear, which prevents a perfect score.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: after browser_console_start has been called. It references browser_docs for additional guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., browser_console_clear for clearing logs), so it falls short of a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.