Report whether the browser is running, whether it is headless, its version, and the screenshot output directory. This helps verify browser availability before capturing full-page screenshots.
Report whether the browser is running, whether it is headless, its version, and the screenshot output directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned behavioral facts (running state, headless flag, version, screenshot dir). It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect-free or whether it launches a browser, but 'Report' strongly implies a passive read.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, and the four returned facts are front-loaded in one clause. Every word earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must enumerate return values, and it does so completely for a zero-parameter read tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
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 ('Report') and enumerates exactly what is reported: running state, headless mode, version, and screenshot output directory. This clearly separates it from the action siblings (open_url, screenshot, read_screenshot, close_browser), though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied – an agent can infer this is the tool to call to check browser state, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. call before screenshotting). No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.