Retrieve console errors and uncaught exceptions from a browser tab, optionally include warnings and logs, to diagnose page failures and capture issues during automation.
Console errors and uncaught exceptions of a tab (level "all" adds warnings and logs). fl_act and fl_snapshot already say when new errors appeared.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | Yes | ||
| clear | No | ||
| level | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it never says whether the read is non-destructive, whether the buffer is drained or truncated, whether results are scoped to the current page load or the whole session, or what happens when the error list is empty. Only the level semantics are disclosed.
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 tight sentences with the resource stated first and the level caveat in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is terse enough to be cryptic about the sibling relationship.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description says nothing about what an error entry contains (message, stack, timestamp, level) or how much history is returned. Combined with the undescribed clear parameter, an agent cannot predict the return payload or side effects.
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 coverage is 0%, so all three parameters need explanation, but only level is described ("all" adds warnings and logs). The required tab parameter's accepted format and the clear parameter's effect — presumably draining the buffer — are never explained.
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?
Names a specific resource — console errors and uncaught exceptions of a tab — and clarifies that level "all" widens the set to warnings and logs. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, but an agent can still tell it apart from fl_network and the fl_* action 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?
The note that fl_act and fl_snapshot already report when new errors appeared implies this tool is for drilling into details, but that inference is left to the reader. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus fl_network or the snapshot tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.