Webpage Screenshot MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('clears saved authentication cookies') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects (e.g., logging out users), or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and scope. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple mutation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics via the schema, but fails to provide behavioral context needed for safe usage, such as permissions or side effects.

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 the parameter 'url' documented as 'URL of the domain to clear cookies for. If not provided, clears all cookies.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only restates the same information. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('clears') and resource ('saved authentication cookies'), and distinguishes its scope ('for a specific domain or all domains'). It directly answers what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for a specific domain or all domains,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the sibling tools (e.g., 'login-and-wait'), it lacks guidance on when to clear cookies relative to login/logout workflows.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.