Extract visible text from a web page or a specific element. Use it to read article content while ignoring interactive components.
Get the visible text of the page (or of one element by ref). Use for reading article/content; use browser_snapshot for interactive structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| maxChars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that only visible text is returned and that the tool is scoped to content reading rather than structure, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential truncation behavior, performance implications for large pages, or error behavior when an element ref is invalid.
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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the alternative tool guidance is appended as a clear second sentence. Every word contributes.
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?
For a simple read tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the main purpose and use case. But without an output schema or annotations, it should at least mention the role of maxChars and maybe the return format. The tool is usable as-is, but an agent would have to infer or guess about maxChars.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It explains 'ref' as a way to target one element, but 'maxChars' is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose, constraints, and default behavior undocumented. This is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.
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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('visible text of the page or one element by ref'), and explicitly distinguishes it from browser_snapshot. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily separable from its sibling tools.
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?
It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for reading article/content' and names the alternative: 'use browser_snapshot for interactive structure.' This directly helps an agent choose between two similar browser inspection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.