Retrieve failed requests, policy blocks, and HTTP 4xx/5xx records to diagnose network errors in rendered pages. Status codes are evidence, not verification verdicts.
Retrieve bounded failed requests, policy blocks, and HTTP 4xx/5xx records. Status codes are evidence, not verification verdicts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the useful caveat about status codes not being verdicts and the fact that results are bounded, but never discloses the mutating 'clear' behavior implied by the schema or any auth/session prerequisites.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope and followed by the one non-obvious caveat. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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, 0% parameter documentation, and an undocumented clear flag that implies data removal, the description leaves key operational details to inference. It doesn't say what gets returned or what clearing does, which is inadequate for a tool with a destructive-looking option.
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% for all three parameters. The word 'bounded' loosely gestures at the limit parameter, but session_id, limit ranges, and especially the clear flag (which changes the tool's effect) are entirely unexplained in the description, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (Retrieve) and a precise resource set (failed requests, policy blocks, HTTP 4xx/5xx records), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_console_errors. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
'Status codes are evidence, not verification verdicts' implies a usage boundary (don't feed these into verification, cf. verify_page), but it is an oblique caveat rather than an explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement. No mention of required session context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.