Browser MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a cache, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens if the cache doesn't exist, or any rate limits. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests additional context exists elsewhere but isn't included here.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, though the brevity limits depth.

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 destructive nature (deletion), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks critical behavioral details like error handling, side effects, or response format, relying on an external reference ('browser_docs') that isn't part of the structured data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'cacheName' documented as 'Cache name to delete'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific cache from Cache Storage'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_storage_get_cache_storage' or 'browser_storage_unregister_service_worker', which handle different storage operations but share the 'browser_storage_' prefix.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references 'browser_docs' for more information, but this is not a sibling tool for direct comparison, and there's no explicit mention of when to choose deletion over other cache-related operations or what prerequisites might be needed.

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