Capture the current page as a screenshot to visually verify or document what is displayed in the browser.
Take a screenshot of the current page
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": "browser_screenshot"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only screenshot operation but does not state whether the result is returned as image data or a file path, nor does it clarify viewport versus page scope or any capture constraints.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, even though it leaves important contextual gaps elsewhere.
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 sibling tools for full-page and element screenshots, the description should clarify that this captures the current viewport or page state. Because there is no output schema or annotation coverage, it also should explain what is returned. Neither is addressed, so the agent lacks enough context to confidently select this tool over its siblings.
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, and the empty schema is fully described by its absence. There is no parameter semantics for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource: taking a screenshot of the current page. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from its siblings browser_screenshot_fullpage and browser_screenshot_element, leaving the exact screenshot scope ambiguous.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention browser_screenshot_fullpage, browser_screenshot_element, or browser_snapshot, so the agent must infer that this captures only the current viewport.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.