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 states what the tool detects but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires an active browser page, if it's a one-time check or continuous monitoring, what format the warnings come in, or any performance implications. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 states the core purpose. The parenthetical clarification adds useful technical detail without redundancy. The reference to browser_docs is appropriately placed but could be considered slightly extraneous if not needed for basic understanding.

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 security detection and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the detection returns (e.g., list of warnings, count, details), whether it requires specific page states, or how it interacts with other browser tools. For a tool with potential behavioral nuances, more context is needed.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and the description appropriately doesn't mention parameters.

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: 'Detect mixed content warnings (HTTPS page loading HTTP resources)'. It specifies the verb ('detect') and resource ('mixed content warnings'), and provides a technical definition. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_sec_get_csp_violations or browser_sec_get_security_headers, which also relate to security detection.

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 includes a reference '(see browser_docs)', which implies there are additional usage guidelines in documentation, but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance in the description itself. It doesn't specify when to use this versus other security tools or prerequisites for detection.

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