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 'captured network requests' and 'timing breakdown,' which hints at read-only behavior and data format, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., requires prior monitoring), rate limits, or what 'captured' entails. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that likely interacts with browser state.

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 front-loads the core functionality ('Get captured network requests with timing breakdown') and includes a concise reference to documentation. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly structured and easy to parse.

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 that likely returns complex data (network requests with timing), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, data scope, or dependencies (e.g., needing browser_net_start_monitoring first). For a tool in this context, more completeness 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 single parameter 'filter' documented as 'Filter by URL substring.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('captured network requests') with a specific feature ('timing breakdown'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_net_export_har or browser_net_get_websocket_frames by focusing on captured requests with timing, but doesn't explicitly contrast them, keeping it at a 4.

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 is provided. The reference to 'browser_docs' implies documentation exists but isn't integrated into the description itself. Without clear context or exclusions, the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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