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 monitoring but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it starts a background process, requires prior setup, has side effects (e.g., consuming resources), or how violations are reported. The reference to 'browser_docs' hints at external info but doesn't add value 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and references documentation. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, with no wasted words, though it could be more self-contained without relying on external docs.

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 for a monitoring tool. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., how monitoring works, output format, stopping mechanism via 'browser_sec_stop_csp_monitoring'), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's operation and results.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.

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's purpose as 'Monitor Content Security Policy violations' which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (CSP violations) but lacks detail about what monitoring entails (e.g., starting a monitoring session, real-time detection). It distinguishes from sibling 'browser_sec_get_csp_violations' (likely for fetching results) but not explicitly.

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 vs alternatives is provided. The reference to 'browser_docs' implies documentation exists elsewhere, but the description itself offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without direct instructions.

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