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 tool checks browser accessibility but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what happens if the browser isn't running (e.g., error response, timeout), whether it's a read-only operation, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 purpose and includes a reference for more information. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no 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's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be more informative. It covers the basic check but lacks details on return values (e.g., success/failure indicators) or error handling, which would enhance completeness for a diagnostic tool.

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%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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: 'Check if the browser is running and accessible on port 9222.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('browser'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_docs' (referenced) or other health/status tools that might exist, 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 implies usage by mentioning port 9222 and referencing 'browser_docs' for more details, suggesting it's for verifying browser connectivity. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other browser tools for diagnostics) or any prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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