Extract page content as Markdown, text, or HTML from a browser tab, with optional CSS selector or tab index, so AI agents can read and process web pages.
Extract page content in 'markdown', 'text', or 'html' format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | markdown | |
| selector | No | ||
| tab_index | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only lists output formats. It says nothing about how selector narrows extraction, how tab_index selects a tab, whether the call waits for load, or whether it fails if no page is open.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly due to under-specification rather than tight editing of a complete description.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema descriptions, the selector and tab_index semantics and any usage context are entirely missing, making the definition inadequate for reliable invocation.
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%, and the description only adds meaning for 'format' by enumerating 'markdown', 'text', 'html'. The 'selector' and 'tab_index' parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving most parameter semantics unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('page content') with the three supported output formats named. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_get_links, browser_screenshot, and browser_evaluate, though it never names an alternative 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must a page be loaded first?), and no mention of alternatives such as browser_evaluate for scripted extraction. The agent must infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.