Clear error and console log buffers to discard stale noise, allowing fresh observation of browser runtime messages.
清空錯誤與 log 緩衝區。用於排除舊雜訊後重新觀察。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "clear_buffers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool clears error and log buffers, which indicates a destructive action on accumulated data. However, it does not mention side effects, irreversibility, or any impact beyond the buffers, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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, with two short sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second provides the intended use case. No wasted words.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, clear action), the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It is complete and adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline of 4 applies since no parameter explanation is needed.
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 ('清空' / clear) and the specific resources ('錯誤與 log 緩衝區' / error and log buffers). This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_browser_errors and get_console_logs by signaling a mutating action.
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 a clear usage context: to eliminate old noise before re-observing. It implies this is a reset/preparation step, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.