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 mentions getting DOM structure or element data but lacks behavioral details such as whether it returns raw HTML, a parsed object, error handling for invalid selectors, or performance implications. The reference to browser_docs suggests missing information, making it insufficient for a mutation-free read operation.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the core functionality in one sentence. However, the reference to browser_docs adds a dependency that might reduce self-contained clarity, slightly affecting efficiency. Overall, it's concise with no wasted words.

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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of DOM data), error conditions, or how it differs from other browser tools. For a tool with one parameter but undefined output, more context is needed to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'selector' clearly documented as optional for getting DOM of a specific element. The description adds minimal value by implying the tool can get full DOM (when no selector) or specific element data (with selector), but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool gets DOM structure or element data, which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'full DOM structure' means (e.g., HTML string, JSON representation) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like browser_get_text or browser_read_page that might retrieve similar content. It references browser_docs for details, which reduces clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of browser_docs implies external documentation might contain usage details, but the description itself offers no context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like browser_get_text for text extraction or browser_read_page for page content.

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