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 but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what format the screenshot returns (e.g., image data, file path), whether it requires specific permissions, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, or any side effects (e.g., pausing page interaction). The reference to 'browser_docs' hints at more info but isn't self-contained, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 directly states the purpose, with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. The parenthetical reference to 'browser_docs' adds context without cluttering, though it could be slightly more integrated. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 a screenshot tool (which involves output format, potential errors, and interaction with browser state), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist, and the description doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., needing an active page). The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests missing details, but as-is, it's inadequate for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.

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 parameter 'fullPage' clearly documented as 'Capture full page' with a default of false. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'full page' entails or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as 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 action ('Take a screenshot') and target ('of the current page'), providing a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_start_video_recording or browser_get_dom by focusing on static visual capture. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential screenshot alternatives that might exist in other contexts, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 implies usage when a screenshot is needed, with a reference to 'browser_docs' for more context, suggesting additional guidance exists elsewhere. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like browser_get_dom for text or browser_start_video_recording for dynamic capture, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open page). This provides some implied context but lacks explicit guidelines.

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