Open a web page URL and return its main text as plain text using your logged-in Chrome session. Optionally wait for rendering or scope the text with a CSS selector.
Read any web page: open the URL and return its main text as plain text (uses your logged-in Chrome session).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | http(s) URL | |
| wait | No | seconds to wait for rendering (default 2) | |
| selector | No | optional CSS selector to scope the text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it runs through the user's logged-in Chrome session (an authentication/privacy-relevant fact) and that output is extracted main text rather than raw HTML, but says nothing about failure modes, rate limits, timeouts, or how long pages are handled.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, the return format, and the session context with zero wasted words. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return value (main text as plain text) and the session context. However, for a no-annotation tool it is thin on behavioral completeness — no error/timeout behavior, no guidance on dynamic pages despite exposing a `wait` parameter, and no indication of output size limits.
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%, with each of the three parameters (url, wait, selector) already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, units, or format detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 ("Read") and resource ("any web page"), plus the output shape ("main text as plain text"). The phrase "any web page" implicitly positions it as the generic reader against the site-specific siblings (bilibili/video, douyin/detail), but 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools or when to prefer them over this generic reader. Usage is only implied by the verb "Read," leaving the agent to infer the routing decision itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.