QualityMax QA MCP

Official

by Quality-Max

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Inspect Page

inspect_page

Read-only

Read page structure through outbound browser network requests and return headings, forms, buttons, links, inputs, role/name selectors, and data-testid candidates.

Instructions

Read page structure through outbound browser network requests and return headings, forms, buttons, links, inputs, role/name selectors, and data-testid candidates. storageStatePath may name a workspace-relative Playwright storage-state file for authenticated pages; its credentials are loaded into the throwaway browser context and never returned. Because returned page content may be private, authenticated inspection also requires acknowledgePrivateContent:true as explicit caller consent. Does not intentionally modify the target or local filesystem. allowPrivateNetwork:true is limited to deliberate loopback development targets.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`viewport`	No
`includeForms`	No
`storageStatePath`	No
`allowPrivateNetwork`	No
`includeAccessibilityTree`	No
`acknowledgePrivateContent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.9.0Aug 28, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / acknowledgePrivateContent
```
Added value: +{
+  "const": true,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / storageStatePath
```
Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv0.4.2Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses credential handling ('loaded into the throwaway browser context and never returned'), caller consent expectations, privacy implications, the non-modification guarantee, and the loopback-only private-network restriction. These are meaningful behavioral details not available in the schema or 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by safety and consent details in logical order. Every sentence adds needed information without repetition or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context, safety semantics, and the categories of returned elements. It does not describe the result envelope, limits, failure behavior, or the full meaning of every toggle, but the operative constraints are well established.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameters. It adds real meaning for storageStatePath, acknowledgePrivateContent, and allowPrivateNetwork. The remaining parameters (url, viewport, includeForms, includeAccessibilityTree) are only conveyed by their names and type constraints, so the description does not fully compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Read page structure ... and return headings, forms, buttons, links, inputs, role/name selectors, and data-testid candidates.' This clearly identifies what the tool produces. However, it does not explicitly differentiate inspect_page from sibling tools like scan_url, so it falls short of the top rubric point.

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?

The description provides actionable context for the main conditional parameters: storageStatePath is for authenticated pages, acknowledgePrivateContent is required as consent because content may be private, and allowPrivateNetwork is limited to deliberate loopback development. It does not name alternatives or specify when not to use inspect_page, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Deploy Server