Browser MCP Server

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 tool starts capturing logs and mentions specific log types, but doesn't describe behavioral traits like whether capture continues across page navigation, if it requires specific browser state, what happens if already capturing, or how to stop capturing. The reference to 'browser_docs' hints at more context but isn't self-contained.

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 purpose. The parenthetical examples and reference to documentation are useful additions, though the 'etc.' could be slightly vague. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks completeness for a tool that initiates a stateful process. It doesn't cover important aspects like how to retrieve captured logs (hinted via sibling browser_console_get), stopping mechanisms, or error conditions. The reference to 'browser_docs' partially mitigates but doesn't make the description self-sufficient.

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 100%, with the parameter 'level' fully documented in the schema including its optional nature, type, description, and enum values. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 specific action ('Start capturing') and resource ('browser console logs'), with explicit examples of what's captured (console.log, console.error, console.warn, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_console_clear and browser_console_get by focusing on initiation rather than clearing or retrieving logs.

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 when console log capture is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references 'browser_docs' for more information, which suggests additional context exists elsewhere, but doesn't provide direct when/when-not instructions or name specific alternatives.

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