elementor-mcp-agent

screenshot_page

Read-only

Capture a PNG screenshot of a page's frontend for visual analysis or comparison. Returns the local file path.

Instructions

Capture a PNG screenshot of a page's frontend (visitor-facing URL). Requires a Chrome/Chromium binary on the host. Returns the local file path so the LLM can analyse it or compare against another shot.

Tool call template

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": "screenshot_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site_id`	No
`page_id`	No
`url`	No	Alternative to page_id: hit any URL directly.
`width`	No
`height`	No
`full_page`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`file_path`	Yes
`bytes`	Yes
`sha256`	Yes
`width`	Yes
`height`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds important precondition: requires Chrome/Chromium binary. Does not disclose failure modes or rate limits, but dependency info is valuable beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with core action and output. Efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Does not explain that site_id+page_id and url are alternatives. Missing parameter coverage. But output schema exists, so return value hint suffices. Overall adequate but with gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (only 'url' described). Description does not explain site_id, page_id, width, height, full_page parameters. Only mentions url implicitly. Fails to compensate for low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb 'capture', resource 'screenshot of page frontend', and format 'PNG'. It distinguishes from sibling 'compare_screenshots' by mentioning comparison use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage for analysis or comparison via 'so the LLM can analyse it or compare against another shot'. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative mentions, but context is clear.

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