browser_extract_metaRetrieve page metadata such as title, meta tags, OpenGraph properties, and canonical URL from a browser tab to analyze SEO and social sharing settings.
Extract page metadata: title, meta tags, OpenGraph, canonical.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output content and never states whether the tool is read-only, whether it acts on the active tab or a specific tab, or what happens when metadata is absent. 'Extract' weakly implies a read operation, but that is not sufficient disclosure.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler and the key verb front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and parameter detail.
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?
With no annotations and 0% parameter-doc coverage, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation; the output schema covers return shape, but the agent still lacks tab/session semantics and usage guidance. The missing context is material for a browser tool operating across sessions and tabs.
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 needed to explain tab and session, but it does not. It gives no meaning to either parameter beyond their names and defaults, leaving the agent to guess whether null tab targets the active page or requires a tab id.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Extract page metadata') and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, meta tags, OpenGraph, canonical). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling extractors like browser_extract_text or browser_extract_links, even without naming them.
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 purpose statement subtly implies using the tool when page metadata is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison with sibling extraction tools. The agent must infer that this is the right tool among many browser_extract_* alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.