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 states the action ('Get text content') but lacks behavioral details such as what happens if the element isn't found (e.g., error handling), whether it requires a page to be loaded, or the format of the returned text. The reference to 'browser_docs' hints at more info but doesn't disclose traits directly.

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 very concise with a single sentence that states the purpose and references documentation. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the reference to 'browser_docs' could be seen as slightly extraneous if not integrated. Overall, it's efficient 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, no output schema, and a simple but action-oriented tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases or return values, and while concise, it relies on external docs ('browser_docs') for completeness, which isn't sufficient for standalone understanding by an AI agent.

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 'selector' parameter clearly documented as a 'Playwright selector for the element'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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's purpose ('Get text content from an element') which is clear but vague about scope. It doesn't specify what type of element or context (e.g., web page, DOM), and while it references 'browser_docs' for details, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_read_page' or 'browser_get_dom' that might also retrieve text or content.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'see browser_docs' which implies additional documentation exists, but within the description itself, there's no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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