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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves certificate details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify behavioral aspects such as whether it requires a loaded HTTPS page, what happens if no certificate is present, the format of returned details, or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes a brief reference to documentation. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (likely low to moderate for a certificate retrieval tool), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource and scope but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests additional information is available elsewhere, but the description itself is incomplete for standalone use.

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, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict the schema and the absence of parameters is straightforward.

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 TLS/SSL certificate details for HTTPS sites.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('TLS/SSL certificate details'), and scope ('for HTTPS sites'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_sec_get_security_headers' or 'browser_sec_get_csp_violations', which are also security-related tools in the same domain.

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 by referencing 'browser_docs' for more information, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser page), exclusions (e.g., not for HTTP sites), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'browser_sec_get_security_headers'. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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