Save the current tab as a PDF directly to your downloads folder without a dialog. If a Firefox save dialog appears, use browser_native_dialog to confirm.
Save the current tab as a PDF to the downloads folder (dialog-free). Useful to capture a rendered page. If your Firefox build still shows a save dialog, use browser_native_dialog to confirm it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | Optional output filename. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dialog-free behavior and the caveat about Firefox builds, and specifies the output destination. However, it does not mention failure modes, return values, or whether the file is overwritten, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and destination, then a concise fallback instruction. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence adds value.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core behavior, output location, and a relevant alternative. It omits return value and error handling, but these are arguably implicit for a save operation. Given no output schema, it is reasonably complete.
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 schema already documents the only parameter ('Optional output filename.') at 100% coverage, and the description adds no additional meaning or constraints. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the parameter documentation.
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 ('Save'), resource ('current tab as PDF'), destination ('downloads folder'), and behavior ('dialog-free'), clearly distinguishing it from browser_screenshot (image) and browser_download (generic). It is immediately obvious what the tool does.
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 provides an explicit use case ('capture a rendered page') and names a concrete alternative (browser_native_dialog) for a specific condition (if a save dialog appears), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.