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 action ('Send a keyboard event') but lacks behavioral details such as whether it requires a focused element, if it simulates key down/up events, potential side effects, or error conditions. The reference to 'browser_docs' hints at external documentation but doesn't itself disclose traits.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. The parenthetical note and reference to browser_docs are brief but could be slightly more integrated. No wasted sentences, though it's minimal.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs an action in a browser context. It lacks details on behavior, prerequisites, return values, or error handling, which are critical for an AI agent to use it correctly without trial and error.

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 parameter 'key' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples beyond those in the schema, no context on key combinations). Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('keyboard event'), explaining it presses a key. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_type (which types text) or browser_click (which clicks), but doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page), compare it to similar tools like browser_type, or specify scenarios where key presses are appropriate over other input methods.

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