Browser MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'inspecting real-time communication,' hinting at a read-only operation for monitoring, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires prior network monitoring setup (e.g., via browser_net_start_monitoring), potential rate limits, output format, or error conditions. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests missing details, 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by a brief reference to external documentation. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it may lack depth.

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 complexity (involving WebSocket frames and network inspection), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits essential context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing active network monitoring), expected output format, and how it integrates with sibling tools like browser_net_start_monitoring. The reference to 'browser_docs' hints at missing information, but the description itself does not provide a self-contained 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 the single parameter 'requestId' documented as 'Request ID from network monitoring.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't explain the source or format of requestId. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation 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 tool's purpose: 'Get WebSocket frames for inspecting real-time communication.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('WebSocket frames'), and high-level goal ('inspecting real-time communication'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_net_get_requests, which might also retrieve network data but for different protocols or formats.

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: it references 'browser_docs' for more information, implying that usage details are elsewhere, but offers no explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives. Without consulting external docs, an agent lacks clear context on when to choose this tool over other network-related siblings like browser_net_get_requests.

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