browser_extract_htmlRetrieve the full HTML document or a targeted element's HTML by reference to inspect, parse, or debug web page content.
Extract HTML — whole document or a specific element (by ref).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| tab | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| session | No | default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavioral distinction between whole-document and element-scoped extraction via the ref parameter. However, with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of behavior and does not say whether the HTML is raw source or serialized DOM, whether it triggers JavaScript, or whether there are any size/rate limit implications.
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?
One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the main operation is stated immediately.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the input semantics for tab, limit, offset, and session are absent, and the description provides no guidance about alternatives. An agent can make a basic default call, but cannot correctly reason about pagination, non-default sessions, or selecting a non-default tab.
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 phrase 'by ref' adds meaning to the ref parameter, and the whole-document behavior for an absent ref is implied. But with 0% schema description coverage, the tab, limit, offset, and session parameters are completely undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving a major 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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Extract HTML' — and further narrows the scope to either the whole document or a specific element by ref. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling extract_* tools by output type and from browser_snapshot or browser_evaluate.
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 description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over browser_extract_text, browser_extract_links, browser_snapshot, or browser_evaluate. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.