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 mentions clicking at coordinates or current position but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this requires a focused browser page, what happens if coordinates are invalid, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, or error handling. The reference to 'browser_docs' hints at external documentation but doesn't disclose key behaviors 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 a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's function and references external docs. It's front-loaded with the core action, but the reference to 'browser_docs' could be seen as slightly extraneous if not integrated into the main explanation. Overall, it's concise with little 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 tool with potential side effects (mouse interaction), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., an active browser page), or how it interacts with other tools. The reference to external docs doesn't compensate for these gaps in the description itself.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (x, y, button, clickCount) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal value by implying coordinate usage but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies, such as coordinate systems or interaction effects.

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 as clicking the mouse at specific coordinates or on current position, which is clear but vague about the context (e.g., in a browser). It distinguishes from sibling 'browser_click' by specifying mouse actions, but doesn't fully differentiate from other mouse-related tools like 'browser_mouse_move' or 'browser_mouse_drag' in terms of when to use each.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_click' or other mouse tools. It references 'browser_docs' for more information, but this is an external reference rather than direct usage instructions. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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