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 mentions 'captured' violations, implying some monitoring must be active first, but doesn't clarify whether this requires browser_sec_start_csp_monitoring to be running, what format the violations are returned in, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 reference to external docs adds minimal clutter. However, it could be slightly more self-contained by clarifying what 'captured' means in this context.

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 monitoring tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship with start/stop monitoring siblings, what data is returned, or any behavioral constraints. The reference to external documentation suggests 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 with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly doesn't attempt to do so. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what the schema already provides (which is complete).

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 states the tool 'Get captured CSP violations' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('captured CSP violations'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like browser_sec_start_csp_monitoring or browser_sec_stop_csp_monitoring, leaving the relationship unclear. The parenthetical '(see browser_docs)' suggests incomplete documentation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The reference to 'browser_docs' implies external documentation might contain usage information, but the description itself offers no context about prerequisites, timing relative to monitoring tools, or appropriate use cases.

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