Browser MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to do so, offering no information on effects (e.g., whether scrolling is instant or animated), error conditions, or dependencies. The reference to 'browser_docs' does not compensate for this lack of transparency in the description itself.

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 brief but under-specified, not conciseness. It consists of a single sentence with a parenthetical reference, which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it fails to provide essential information, reducing its effectiveness.

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. It does not explain what the tool returns, potential side effects, or how it interacts with the browser context. For a tool with two parameters and behavioral implications, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 clear descriptions for 'x' and 'y' as horizontal and vertical scroll positions. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles documentation adequately.

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 page (see browser_docs)' restates the tool name 'browser_scroll' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It does not specify what type of scrolling (e.g., absolute positioning, relative movement) or distinguish it from sibling tools like browser_mouse_wheel, which might also scroll.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references 'browser_docs' for more information, but this is not explicit usage advice. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an active page, or comparisons to other scrolling methods.

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