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 of behavioral disclosure. However, it only mentions scrolling and refers to documentation without detailing behavioral traits such as effects on the page, potential side effects, or interaction with other browser tools. This leaves the agent with no actionable behavioral insights.

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 concise with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The reference to 'browser_docs' adds structure by pointing to external resources, but the front-loaded information is minimal, making it less effective as a standalone guide.

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 complexity of browser interaction tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use, such as how scrolling interacts with page elements or what to expect in terms of behavior, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 clear definitions for deltaX and deltaY as horizontal and vertical scroll amounts. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 'Scroll the mouse wheel (see browser_docs)' states the action but is vague about the scope and lacks specificity. It mentions a sibling tool (browser_docs) for reference but doesn't differentiate from other scrolling tools like 'browser_scroll', leaving the purpose unclear. This is borderline tautological as it essentially restates the tool name.

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 minimal guidance by referencing 'browser_docs', implying that more details are available elsewhere, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_scroll'. There's no clear context or exclusions provided, making it insufficient for informed usage decisions.

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