Clear residual browser state (cookies, storage, network captures, active routes, persistent hooks) and optionally stop the engine trace.
Reset browser residual state after serializing trace transitions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear_cookies | No | ||
| clear_storage | No | ||
| stop_engine_trace | No | ||
| clear_active_routes | No | ||
| clear_network_capture | No | ||
| clear_persistent_hooks | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Input schema / properties / stop_engine_traceAdded value: +{
+ "default": true,
+ "title": "Stop Engine Trace",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'reset browser residual state,' which is vague and does not explain the destructive effects implied by the parameters (clearing cookies, storage, hooks, network capture), reversibility, or scope. The input schema hints at side effects, but the description itself does not disclose them.
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, compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource and earns its place, though it could be more informative without needing to be longer.
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 tool with six boolean parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain return values, side effects, prerequisites, or the meaning of 'residual state,' making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke the tool correctly.
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 mentions none of the six parameters or their semantics. The tool's parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no guidance on what each flag does, what the defaults imply, or how they interact. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 ('Reset') and names the resource ('browser residual state') with a situational context ('after serializing trace transitions'). It is not a tautology and gives a clear sense of the action, though 'residual state' is somewhat vague and does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling cleanup tools like remove_hooks or clear_network_capture.
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 phrase 'after serializing trace transitions' provides a clear trigger context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among the many related sibling tools, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.