steel_session_live_viewView and control a live cloud browser session without page content. Acquire, renew, or release a lease to hand off control for logins or CAPTCHAs.
App-only viewer and control lease; no page content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | ||
| session_id | No | Omit to stream the newest live session this credential owns, which is what a viewer that never received the session does. | |
| control_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds a little context with 'app-only' and 'no page content,' but it does not disclose the lease lifecycle, side effects of release, or what happens to a control lease across actions. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 very short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified to the point of being a cryptic fragment. It front-loads no actionable instruction and leaves the agent to infer meaning from the title and schema, which is not effective conciseness.
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 three-parameter control tool with no output schema, destructive and open-world annotations, and many related session siblings, this description is insufficient. The only substantive guidance comes from the session_id schema description; the agent still lacks action semantics, token requirements, and selection criteria.
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 only 33%: only session_id has a description, while action and control_token are undocumented. The description's word 'lease' loosely relates to the action enum, but it does not explain connect, acquire, renew, or release semantics, nor does it clarify what control_token is or when it is needed.
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 communicates that this tool is about an app-only viewer/control lease and explicitly notes 'no page content,' which gives some domain context. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like steel_session_create, steel_session_release, or steel_session_handoff.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. 'No page content' hints at an exclusion, but there are no explicit conditions, alternatives, or when-not-to-use signals, leaving an agent to guess whether live_view is appropriate relative to session_create, session_release, or handoff.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.