Extract visible text from a full page body or a specific CSS-selected element using a browser session ID, so you can read rendered content without parsing HTML.
Get the visible text content of an element or the entire page body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | No | CSS selector of the element (omit for full page body text) | |
| session_id | Yes | Session ID returned by browser_navigate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuine behavioral detail — only *visible* text is returned — but says nothing about hidden elements, whitespace normalization, or whether a missing selector/text yields an error or empty string.
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 14-word sentence with zero filler, and the primary scope (element vs. whole page) is front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.
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 two-parameter, read-only tool the definition is minimally sufficient, but with no output schema it never says what comes back (a plain string? concatenated visible text? empty on no match), and it omits the sibling routing that a crowded namespace like this one clearly needs.
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 100%: the selector parameter already documents 'CSS selector of the element (omit for full page body text)' and session_id points back to browser_navigate. The description's 'entire page body' clause merely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Get the visible text content') plus the two scopes (a single element or the entire page body). It implicitly distinguishes itself from browser_get_html by specifying 'text content', but it never names browser_get_html, browser_get_attribute, or extract as the alternatives an agent must choose between.
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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over browser_get_html when only readable text matters, or over browser_get_attribute for a single attribute, and no prerequisites (e.g. an active session from browser_navigate) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.