jev-mcp

browser_read

Open a URL in the user's logged-in Chrome and read its visible text and interactive elements without clicking, typing, or selecting—ideal for checking pages behind login before automating actions.

Instructions

Open one page in the user's real, logged-in Chrome and return its visible text plus the table of elements that can be operated. This tool clicks nothing, types nothing and selects nothing. Opening the page is itself a request, though: it opens a background tab and navigates to url with the user's cookies, so a URL that acts on GET will act, for example a logout, an unsubscribe, a confirmation link or a one-click action. Right for reading or checking a page, for seeing what a page offers before starting browser_task, and for content behind a login the user already has. Wrong when anything has to be clicked or filled in (use browser_task), and wasteful for public pages that need no login (use a web fetch or search tool). Redirects are followed but verified: landing on another registrable domain is reported, and none of that page's text, elements, title or address is returned; widen that with allow_domains. The underlying library observes at most 6000 characters of visible text and cuts a longer page before text_limit (default 4000) applies, so the answer reports how long the observed text was and warns when it reached that ceiling. Labels and field values are capped at 200 characters and option lists at 50 entries per element, and the answer says when it capped something. Same limits as the agent: no iframes, no shadow DOM, no file uploads, no pop-up tabs, and only the visible viewport is observed, so content further down the page can be missing. Only one run can be in flight at a time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`text_limit`	No
`allow_domains`	No
`time_budget_s`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does 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 does this exceptionally well: it explains GET side effects with user cookies, redirect verification and cross-domain blocking, text length capping, element/field caps, unsupported iframes/shadow DOM/popups, viewport-only observation, and the single-flight concurrency constraint.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and output, then organizes guidance into usage recommendations, redirect behavior, limits, and concurrency. No structured schema information is repeated, and there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, an output schema already exists, and no annotations are present, the description is operationally complete. It covers side effects, explicit use cases, alternative tool routing, domain verification, truncation behavior, environment limitations, and concurrency. An agent has enough to know when and how to invoke it safely.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to url by explaining cookie-aware navigation and GET side effects, to text_limit through the 4000-character default ceiling, and to allow_domains by showing it widens redirect acceptance. time_budget_s is not explained in detail, but its title and default are fairly self-explanatory, and the core parameters receive substantial semantic grounding.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Open one page in the user's real, logged-in Chrome and return its visible text plus the table of elements that can be operated.' It clearly distinguishes itself from browser_task by stating it clicks, types, and selects nothing, and its role as a read-oriented tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use the tool: for reading or checking pages, for seeing what a page offers before starting browser_task, and for content behind the user's login. It also states when not to use it: when clicks or fills are required (use browser_task) and for public pages (use a web fetch or search tool). This gives the agent concrete routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server