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 mentions retrieving registrations and state, but fails to specify critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence that states the purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the reference to 'browser_docs' adds a slight dependency that could be considered extraneous if not integrated.

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 (retrieving service worker data) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what is retrieved but omits details on return format, error handling, or prerequisites, making it incomplete for fully informed 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, which is efficient and avoids redundancy. A baseline score of 4 is applied as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('service worker registrations and their state'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_storage_get_cache_storage' or 'browser_storage_get_indexeddb' beyond the resource type, which slightly limits clarity.

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, such as other browser storage tools or general inspection methods. It references 'browser_docs' for more details, but this is not explicit usage advice, leaving the agent without clear context for selection.

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